Quantcast
Channel: Freedom House - China Media Bulletin
Viewing all 165 articles
Browse latest View live

China Media Bulletin : Issue No. 107

$
0
0
save chinese laywers freedom

Announcement:  Freedom House is pleased to resume publication of the China Media Bulletin. Later this month, we will also be publishing its first issue in Chinese. 

Want the China Media Bulletin delivered to your inbox? Subscribe here. 

 HEADLINES: AUGUST 2015

  • Feature: How Beijing’s Crackdown on Lawyers Affects Media Freedom
  • State media drive stock market bubble, netizens react to crash with humor
  • Coverage of secretive leadership conclave hints at party infighting
  • Draft cybersecurity law to tighten internet controls
  • Public security agents to be assigned to major internet firms
  • Beyond China: Hollywood, pop stars, and hot air balloons
  • What to Watch For

NEW Feature: How Beijing’s Crackdown on Lawyers Affects Media Freedom 

For the past month, the Chinese authorities have engaged in a sweeping crackdown on human rights lawyers and the broader “rights defense movement” they represent. At last count, over 250 attorneys, law firm staff, family members, and activists across China had been detained or summoned for questioning since July 9. At least 20 remain in custody or are missing. Several of those being held face serious, politically motivated charges that could result in long prison terms.

Much commentary inside and outside China has, understandably, focused on the campaign’s negative impact on the rule of law. But the assault on this community of attorneys and the manner in which it has unfolded also have important implications for media and internet freedom.

Some media-related features of the crackdown have been relatively predictable, following the Communist Party’s usual playbook for persecuting civil society activists. First, in a tactic that has been termed “cyberdisappearance,” the names of several detained lawyers were quickly rendered “sensitive,” meaning online searches for them now result in error messages or sanitized lists of links. Second, on July 14, censorship officials directed all websites to use only “authoritative” official sources in their reports about the lawyers’ detention, and to avoid reposting news from “non-standard” sources. Third, in a Mao-era practice that has been revived under President Xi Jinping, the national broadcaster China Central Television aired the forced confessions of at least two attorneys.

But three other aspects of the crackdown represent a worrisome escalation of the Communist Party’s suppression and manipulation of information.

1. More aggressive smear campaign on state media: As in other authoritarian settings, the detention of civil society activists in China is often accompanied by efforts to discredit them and their cause via state media. But the vigor with which Communist Party–controlled outlets are now attempting to vilify the rights defense movement goes beyond such run-of-the-mill defamation. The articles are more numerous and frequent, including not only news items, but also anonymous editorials and contrived “expert opinion” pieces. And the lawyers are smeared with more extreme language, including terms like “major criminal syndicate,” “seamy,” “sinister,” and “shrewish.”

The coverage has been supplemented with manipulative use of video footage and the creation of sophisticated infographics and cartoons. In fact, the demonizing nature and scale of the media blitz are reminiscent of Mao-era political campaigns, or more recent full-scale crackdowns on popular movements such as the 1999 ban on the Falun Gong spiritual group. This may not be coincidental, as many of the detained lawyers had represented Falun Gong clients. 

2. First WeChat arrests: China’s human rights lawyers have been avid users of Tencent’s WeChat and similar instant-messaging platforms—including QQ groups, another Tencent service, and Telegram, developed by Russian entrepreneurs. These tools allow for the speedy sharing of information within a closed circle of contacts and are less heavily censored than more public platforms like the Sina Weibo microblogging service. They have allowed rights defense lawyers to connect with victims of abuse who need legal counsel, share advice on sensitive cases, and promote petitions on behalf of ordinary citizens and fellow lawyers who face official harassment.

Although the evidence against the detained attorneys remains unclear, high-profile reports from party mouthpieces like People’s Daily have adopted an incriminating tone when describing the lawyers’ use of WeChat and similar platforms for coordination. If such activity forms the basis for future convictions, these would be the first known cases of individuals being imprisoned for sharing political or social content on WeChat. Separately, Telegram—whose “secret chat” feature enables encrypted exchanges of information—suffered a major denial-of-service attack that hampered its Asia-Pacific services during the first days of the crackdown, and was subsequently blocked in China.

3. Assault on internet activism itself: While the criminalization of online speech in China is not new, the wholesale demonization of using the internet for social activism is exceptional. A central focus of the accusations made against the human rights lawyers has been their use of social media and other online tools to challenge official versions of events, share images of small-scale protests that then garner wider attention, raise funds from the public, or build popular support for their clients in an effort to gain judicial sympathy.

Given the Communist Party’s political influence over the judiciary, lawyers’ use of such tactics has often proven crucial in securing an additional measure of protection—and occasionally freedom—for their clients. Indeed, several of the lawyers and activists who remain in detention played key roles in many online campaigns that made national and international headlines in recent years, sparking public debate about rights issues ranging from sexual harassment and religious freedom to police brutality, and occasionally winning government concessions.

The escalation surrounding the rights defense crackdown fits a broader pattern in which the Communist Party under Xi Jinping has been closing previously available space for civil society, while imposing the party line more forcefully as the dominant media narrative, both online and off.

Such actions have ramifications far beyond the legal community. The potential persecution of activists for WeChat communications could have a chilling effect on the application’s hundreds of millions of users in China. Meanwhile, the wide swath of citizens previously defended by the detained lawyers will find it terribly difficult to uphold their right to free expression. Even if competent attorneys are courageous enough to take the places of their jailed colleagues—a likely scenario given the movement’s past resilience—they will face new limits on how to defend clients and mobilize support for their release or protection from abuse in a dramatically lopsided legal system.

The crackdown on human rights lawyers is truly a step backward for media freedom and the ability of all Chinese citizens to impart and receive information that is critical to their well-being and life decisions, the quality of their country’s governance, and the long-term vigor of their society.

Photo Credit:Human Rights in China


PRINT/BROADCAST  State media drive market bubble, netizens react to crash with humor

Retrospective analysis of the Chinese stock market bubble that burst on June 12, wiping out an estimated $3.5 trillion in value, has pointed to the role of state media—and the public’s use of the outlets to gauge the leadership’s priorities—in contributing to the distortion. Editorials and articles in leading Communist Party mouthpieces over the past year had predicted a bull market, fueling the belief that the government would ensure such an outcome.

In addition to employing government financial interventions as a form of damage control, in early July, People’s Daily, the Beijing News, and other state media published articles that urged “rationality and calm” and declared confidence in the Chinese economy. Then, on July 23, regulators instructed media outlets to “substantially cut down on coverage of the stock market,” discontinue expert interviews and in-depth discussions, avoid terms like “spike” or “slump,” and adhere strictly to information from the official China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC).  

Though the crash directly affects only a small share of the population and economy, it could nevertheless have serious political implications. Observers note the damage done to the party’s legitimacy and to that of President Xi Jinping himself. Many analysts suggest that this political motivation, rather than sound economic reasons, drove officials to intervene aggressively to stop the stock slide. Some, such as blogger Wen Yunchao, argue that regime insecurity linked to the market plunge helped catalyze the July crackdown on human rights lawyers (see above).

Separately, two notable categories of netizen reaction have remained largely uncensored on the Sina Weibo microblogging platform: angry comments against CSRC chairman Xiao Gang, a possible scapegoat for the crash, and morbid stock-related jokes. One joke that was shared widely during the third week of stock declines read as follows: “Last month, my dog ate what I ate. Last week, I ate what my dog ate. This week, I ate my dog.”

Details


PRINT / BROADCAST  Coverage of secretive leadership conclave hints at party infighting

Conflicting state media reports have fueled confusion about whether an annual conclave of current and past Communist Party leaders, traditionally held at the Baidaihe resort town outside Beijing, is actually taking place. Coverage appeared to progress as usual on the morning of August 5, when the China Daily reported that economic development wouldbe high on the agenda for the “upcoming” meeting. Later in the day, Xinhua reported that Vice President Li Yuanchao was visiting Baidaihe, while another piece stated that Politburo Standing Committee member Liu Yunshan had been dispatched to the town as well. But that evening, the Xinhua-owned magazine Economy and Nation Weekly dropped a bombshell with an article titled “No need to wait, the Baidaihe meeting is off.” The piece was circulated on WeChat, noted in the nationalistic state-owned newspaper Global Times, and then posted on the English-language Twitter feed of the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily.

Subsequent reporting indicated an absence of high-level officials in Beijing and a heavy security presence in Baidaihe, meaning the summit was likely taking place in some form and may even have opened earlier than usual this year. According to local and foreign news reports, the agenda included the economy, next steps for Xi’s anticorruption campaign, and high-level personnel decisions.

The contradictory state media reports on a gathering of this importance may reflect infighting within the top echelons of the party, especially between Xi and elders like Jiang Zemin. This perception was strengthened by an August 10 People’s Daily commentary arguing that retired party cadres should stay out of politics. Intraparty clashes have spilled into the state media in the past. In April 2012, for example, the purge of powerful Politburo member Bo Xilai led to conflicting commentaries and subsequent efforts to reinforce party discipline (see CMB No. 53).

Details


NEW MEDIA  Draft cybersecurity law to tighten internet controls

The National People’s Congress published a draft cybersecurity law on July 6, leaving it open to public comment until August 5. The proposed law appears to consolidate the coordination role of the new Cyberspace Administration of China, while also codifying, institutionalizing, and strengthening the enforcement of measures already employed by the Chinese authorities to censor and monitor internet communications. For example, Articles 53 and 57 call for internet companies to strengthen censorship and better enforce real-name registration, or risk penalties including fines of up to 500,000 RMB ($80,400), website closure, or license revocation. Article 50 permits authorities to shut down internet connectivity at times of public security emergencies, a practice that provincial and local governments have adopted ad hoc in Xinjiang, Tibet, and other sites of public protests for the last six years. However, the law also introduces new measures, most notably a requirement that companies store user data within China, as well as personalized fines for management personnel at companies that fail to comply with the law’s provisions. 

Experts in China, human rights groups, and the international business community have largely reacted with concern, although one Hong Kong-based researcher acknowledged that the law “sets up a fairly comprehensive personal data protection regime” for private internet companies. The draft law follows a trend evident under President Xi Jinping in which the authorities have tried to close perceived loopholes that allow for both netizen sharing of uncensored information and U.S. surveillance. If passed in its current form and strongly enforced, the new legislation could prove costly to companies burdened with instantaneous censorship obligations and real-name registration rules. It could also restrict foreign firms from supplying certain networking equipment, and lead to more detentions of Chinese citizens for sharing political, social, or religious content that is deemed undesirable to the Chinese Communist Party.

Details


NEW MEDIA  Public security agents to be assigned to major internet firms

On August 4, the Ministry of Public Security announced that it would begin placing agents in “network security offices” at major internet firms so that they will be better equipped to respond quickly to online crimes. The ministry cited threats like cyberattacks, internet fraud, pornography, and personal data theft, but also made references to online rumors—a term often applied broadly to any information from unofficial sources. This provoked concern that the officers’ presence would be used to identify and punish political and religious dissenters. The companies to be affected were not named, but could include industry leaders like Sina, Tencent, Alibaba, and Baidu. Zhang Baichuan, founder of a consultancy on network security, told the Financial Times that although large-scale deployments could prove logistically difficult for the government, it was feasible to assign security officers to a few key companies within a month. In February 2012, Communist Party representatives were reportedly installed at top microblogging services, including those run by Sina, Sohu, Tencent, and Netease (see CMB No. 47).

Details


BEYOND CHINA  Hollywood, pop stars, and hot air balloons

The Chinese Communist Party’s information controls and political sensitivities often have an impact far beyond the country’s borders. The following are a few incidents reported over the past month that illustrate the complexity and reach of this phenomenon:

  • Hollywood film ‘Pixels’ altered: On July 24, Reuters reported that, according to leaked e-mails from executives at Sony Pictures, proposed scenes from the motion picture Pixels were removed for fear of upsetting Chinese censors and hampering the film’s release in the country’s fast-growing cinema market. For example, use of the Great Wall of China as the target of an alien attack was nixed. In recent years, many Hollywood studios have altered the version of films being shown in China for such purposes (see CMB No. 87). In this case, the film to be viewed by global audiences was affected as well. An e-mail by Steven O’Dell, president of Sony Pictures Releasing International, explains the possible logic behind this decision: “Recommendation is to change all versions as if we only change the China version, we set ourselves up for the press to call us out for this when bloggers invariably compare the versions and realize we changed the China setting just to pacify that market.”
     
  • Taylor Swift vs. Tiananmen: On July 22, the Guardian reported that merchandise related to pop star Taylor Swift’s new album 1989 may encounter distribution problems in China because the title matches the year of the Communist Party’s violent crackdown on protesters in Beijing, and Swift’s initials match those of Tiananmen Square, the main site of the protests. Swift has partnered with e-commerce companies to sell an authentic line of clothing ahead of an upcoming “1989” album tour in the country. To date, the album itself has been available for purchase. Some social-media users expressed concerns that wearers of the clothing items could face detention, while China Central Television posted on Facebook an announcement of the new clothing line that excluded the number “1989” from the shirt Swift was modeling. 
     
  • Big Bang Theory’ returns: On July 22, the popular American television show The Big Bang Theory returned to the Chinese streaming site Sohu after regulators reviewed and approved its latest season for airing. In April 2014, the show and several others were abruptly removed from Sohu and other streaming sites, despite their immense popularity and legal agreements permitting their release (see CMB No. 105). The show’s return reopens access to a lucrative market for CBS, the U.S. network that produces the program.
     
  • UK visa for Ai Weiwei: On July 31, British newspapers reported that the United Kingdom had approved a six-month visa for dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who planned to oversee the installation of an exhibit in London. The decision was made by the home secretary after a junior official granted Ai only a 20-day permit. The first official justified the decision by stating that Ai had not been fully truthful on his application about a past criminal conviction. In fact, Ai had never been convicted of a crime; he was detained extralegally in 2011, and his art studio was forced to pay a large tax penalty, both apparently to punish his criticism of the authorities. The initial visa decision sparked widespread criticism in China and abroad, likely prompting the correction, as well as a letter apologizing to the artist for the inconvenience. Ai’s trip was made possible by the return of his passport earlier in the month after four years in the hands of the Chinese authorities (see CMB No. 96).
     
  • Tibetan ‘snow lion’ balloon: A 100-foot-tall hot air balloon bearing the Tibetan flag and piloted by two British citizens has participated in ballooning events in Europe in recent weeks. Chinese embassy officials in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom have reportedly contacted event organizers in a bid to ground the vessel. On August 4, the Guardian reported that organizers of the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta, for example, had refused to ban the balloon despite an e-mail purporting to be from the third secretary in the political section of the Chinese embassy in London, requesting that its participation be canceled in the name of Sino-British relations.

Details


WHAT TO WATCH FOR

  • Lawyers crackdown: Watch for which lawyers—if any—receive convictions and sentences, for what actions and charges they are sentenced, and whether WeChat communications appear as evidence in any verdicts against lawyers or activists.
     
  • Internet security law: Watch for the law’s passage and whether any amendments are made to bring it closer to international standards for privacy and free expression. If passed, note any signs of intensified censorship and enforcement of real-name registration rules.
     
  • U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue: With the annual dialogue scheduled to open August 13, observers should watch for what information is made public about discussion of free expression issues, including problematic pending legislation. Note also whether U.S. officials publicly remark on the worrisome timing of the crackdown on human rights lawyers, which came shortly after the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in late June, and whether any linkages are made between the fulfillment of U.S. requests—such as the release of detained political prisoners—and Xi Jinping’s planned September visit to the United States.

Want the China Media Bulletin delivered to your inbox? Subscribe here. 

Questions, comments, or items to share? Write to cmb@freedomhouse.org


中國媒體快報 第107號:2015年8月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0
chinese lawyers

自由之家中國新聞自由觀察月報

頭條新聞

  • 本月圖片:釋放律師
  • 特寫: 北京對維權律師的打壓如何影響媒體自由
  • 官方媒體催大股市泡沫,網民幽默回應股市暴跌
  • 對中國領導人北戴河秘密會議的報道暗示黨內鬥爭
  • 擬議中的網絡安全法旨在鉗緊互聯網控制
  • 公安人員將進駐主要互聯網公司
  • 中國之外:好萊塢、流行歌星、和熱氣球
  • 未來看點

特写     北京對維權律師的打壓如何影響媒體自由

莎拉∙庫克
東亞資深研究分析員


本文2015年8月20日也在《自由時報》網站發表。

過去一個月來,中國過當局對維權律師以及他們所代表的更廣泛的“維權運動”進行了大規模打壓。根據最新統計,從7月9日至今,中國多省市250名以上律師、律所工作人員、家庭成員、和活躍人士遭到抓捕或傳喚。目前至少20人仍然在押或下落不明。其中幾人可能面臨嚴重的、出於政治動機的檢控以及長刑。

可以理解,中國國內和外國評論大多集中在抓捕律師對法治的負面影響。但是對維權律師群體的攻擊以及攻擊的方式對新聞自由和互聯網自由也有重要的影響。

中國官方媒體對抓捕維權律師的特寫報道不出喉舌媒體的套路,與共產黨迫害公民社會活躍人士如出一轍。首先是所謂的“網絡失蹤”,幾個被抓捕的律師的名字很快變成了“敏感詞”。這意味著現在去查找他們的名字,不是查不到,就是只能查到經過審查的鏈接。其次,7月14日,審查官員指示所有網站在報道抓捕律師的時候必須使用官方通稿,不可轉載“非標准”來源的新聞。第三,中國的中央電視台播放了至少兩位被抓律師被迫認罪的錄像。這是習近平上台以來重新啟用的毛澤東時代慣用的做法。

這次抓捕的另外三個方面顯示共產黨壓制和操控信息升級,令人憂慮。

1.在官方媒體上進行更大力度的抹黑: 如同在其它威權國家的情況一樣,在中國,公民社會活躍人士在被捕後,官方常常會在國家媒體上對他們進行抹黑和歪曲。但是共產黨控制的媒體這次攻擊維權運動的力度超乎尋常。這次發表的文章一是數量更多、更頻繁,不僅包括報道,還包括匿名社論和裝模作樣的“專家意見”文章。攻擊律師時所用的語言更加極端,包括諸如"重大犯罪團伙"、"勾連"、"黑幕"、 以及 "不可告人"。

官方報道還使用剪裁過的錄像、看似專業的信息圖表、以及卡通來污蔑被抓捕的律師。這種全方位出動媒體進行妖魔化的做法非常類似毛澤東時代的政治運動的做法,與更近一些的全民打壓運動、如1999年取締法輪功時的做法也十分類似。這也許並不是偶然的類似,許多被拘禁的律師都曾經代理過法輪功當事人。

2. 首批微信逮捕:中國維權律師非常喜歡使用騰訊社交平台微信以及類似的社交平台,包括騰訊的另一個社交服務平台QQ群以及由俄羅斯企業家開發的社交平台“電報”。這些工具使得一個封閉的朋友圈可以快速分享信息,與諸如新浪微博這種更加公眾化的平台相比,受到的審查相對寬松一些。這些工具使得維權律師可以與需要辯護人的受害者相互取得聯系、在敏感案件上分享建議、為遭受官方騷擾的普通公民以及律師同仁進行呼吁等。

盡管官方抓捕律師的憑據仍然不清楚,但是諸如《人民日報》這樣的共產黨報紙和電視的報道在描述維權律師如何在微信以及類似平台上進行協調時,使用了興師問罪的口氣。如果社交媒體的活動構成未來定罪的依據,這將會成為個人因為在微信上分享政治或社會內容而被監禁的首批案例。另一方面,在抓捕維權律師的最初幾天,“電報”遭受了一次重大的阻斷服務攻擊,其亞太服務遭遇障礙,後在中國遭到封鎖。“電報”的“秘密聊天”功能使得用戶可以交換加密信息。

3. 對互聯網倡導活動本身的攻擊:在中國,因網上言論而獲罪並非新事,但是對使用互聯網進行社會倡導活動進行這樣的大規模污名化還是例外。當局對維權律師的指控之一是他們使用社交媒體和其它網絡工具挑戰官方對事件的報道,分享小型抗議的圖片,引起更大範圍的關注,向公眾募捐,或為他們的當事人動員公眾支持,以便獲得司法同情。

考慮到共產黨對司法的政治影響,律師們要為他們的當事人獲得更多保護、有時是獲得自由,必須使用這樣的策略。事實上,這次被抓捕的律師與活躍人士中有好幾位過去幾年裡都曾在許多網絡聲援中起了關鍵作用,獲得了國內以及國際媒體的報道,就權利問題引發了公共辯論,議題包括性騷擾、宗教自由、警察施暴等。在有些情況下還贏得了政府的讓步。

習近平上台以來關閉了公民社會原有的狹窄空間,在線上和線下都更強勢地貫徹黨的表述和官媒話語,維權運動打壓升級則是這個更廣泛的做法的一部分。

抓捕維權律師的影響與後果遠遠不止於法律界。對活躍人士的微信言論進行可能的檢控會在成千上萬的中國用戶當中造成寒蟬效應。同時,大量從這些被打壓的維權律師那裡獲得幫助的公民將發現,維持他們的自由表達權是一件非常困難的事情。即使有勝任的律師勇敢地站出來取代那些被抓律師的位置(考慮到這個運動以往表現出的韌性這是很有可能會出現的情況),他們在如何為當事人辯護、如何為他們的釋放或免受一面倒司法系統的虐待而發動聲援時,會面臨新的限制。

鎮壓維權律師對媒體自由來說、對中國公民發布和獲得信息的能力來說也是一次倒退,而這樣的能力對他們的良好狀態和生活決定、對國家治理以及社會的長期活力都具有關鍵意義。

詳細鏈接

照片: 中國人權。


紙媒/廣播   官方媒體催大股市泡沫,網民幽默回應股市暴跌

中國股市6月12日開始暴跌,失去了相當於大約3.5萬億美元的價值。對中國股市泡沫破裂的回溯分析指出官方媒體在鼓吹股市中起的作用,而公眾則通過官方媒體的話語和口氣判斷領導人的意圖。共產黨喉舌媒體在過去一年裡發表多篇社論和文章,預測一個牛市,鼓動人們相信政府會確保這樣一個牛市結果。

除了使用政府財政干預措施進行損害控制外,7月初,《人民日報》、《新京報》以及其它官方媒體都發表文章,敦促“理性與冷靜”,並宣稱對中國經濟有信心。然後,7月23日,管制機構指示媒體“大幅減少關於股市的報道”,不再組織專家訪談以及深度解讀,避免使用“暴漲”“暴跌”等詞語,嚴格以監管部門正式發布的信息為依據等。

盡管股市暴跌只對一小部分人口造成直接影響,對中國經濟也沒有太大影響,但是它卻可能具有非常嚴重的政治影響。觀察者們指出股市下跌對共產黨合法性以及對習近平主席本人的損害。許多分析人士指出,中國官員是出於這樣的政治動機、而不是良好的經濟理由,采取強勢干預措施,以制止股市進一步下滑。一些分析人士,如博客作者溫雲超,認為政權的不安全感與股市下跌,催化了七月對維權律師的抓捕(見上)。

另一方面,值得注意的是,新浪微博似乎未對兩類網民反應進行審查和刪除:對證監會主席肖鋼的憤怒評論(他也許會成為這次股災的替罪羊),以及與股市相關的黑色幽默。股市下跌後第三個星期裡,網上傳得很廣的一個段子說,“上個月,我吃什麼狗吃什麼。上星期狗吃什麼我吃什麼。這個星期我把狗吃了。” 

詳細鏈接


紙媒/廣播    對中國領導人北戴河秘密會議的報道暗示黨內鬥爭 

中國共產黨往屆和現任領導人傳統上每年夏天在離北京不遠的北戴河海濱勝地舉行會議,但是今天官方媒體互相矛盾的報道使得人們對北戴河會議今年是否舉行產生了混亂的說法。直至8月5日早上,對北戴河會議的報道一切如常,《中國日報》報道說,經濟發展會是“即將”召開的北戴河會議的首要議題之一。同一天晚些時候,新華社報道說,李源潮副主席正在訪問北戴河,另一篇報道說政治局常委劉雲山已經去了北戴河。但是當天晚上,新華社旗下的雜志《財經國家周刊》則發表了一篇爆炸性文章,題目是《別等了,北戴河無會》。這篇文章在微信上廣泛傳播,以民族主義情緒著名的官方媒體《環球時報》注意到了這篇文章,之後共產黨喉舌報紙《人民日報》的英文推特賬戶也貼了這篇文章。

接下來的報道顯示北京高層領導人的缺席以及北戴河的高度警衛狀態,這意味著北戴河高峰會議可能還是以某種形式開了,甚至有可能比往年開得早些。根據中國國內以及國際媒體的報道,議程包括經濟、習近平反腐運動的下一步、以及高層人事決策。

官方媒體對如此重要的會議出現矛盾報道,也許是黨內最高層內鬥、特別是習近平與江澤民等老人之間內鬥的一個反映。8月10日《人民日報》發表評論文章說,退休官員應該退出政治,更加強化了這一印像。過去曾經有過黨內鬥爭反映在官方不同媒體上的先例。比如說,2012年4月,對政治局委員薄熙來的清洗導致相互矛盾的評論以及隨之而來加強黨紀的努力(見《中國傳媒快報》第53號)。

詳細鏈接


新媒體    擬議中的網絡安全法旨在鉗緊互聯網控制 

全國人大7月6日公布了《網絡安全法》草案,截止8月5日前,征求公眾意見。擬議中的法律看來要鞏固新成立的國家網信辦的協調作用,同時將中國當局已經在實施的互聯網審查和監控措施通過法律化、制度化而得到進一步強化。比如說,該草案第53條和第57條要求互聯網公司加強審查,更加強化實名制登記,不然將會受到懲罰,包括上至50萬人民幣(約$80,400美元)的罰款、關閉網站、或吊銷執照。第50條允許當局在公共安全緊急狀態下關閉互聯網。這種做法過去六年來在新疆、西藏以及其它一些出現公眾抗議的地方已經實施過。不過,這項法律還引進了新的措施,最引人注意的是要求公司將用戶信息存儲在中國境內;違反該法律的公司主管會受到個人罰款。

中國境內的專家、國際人權組織、以及國際商界對此法律表示關注,盡管香港的一個研究者表示,這項法律為民營互聯網公司“制訂了相對比較全面的個人數據保護機制”。習近平上台以來,中國當局一直在試圖關閉漏洞,在他們看來,這些漏洞允許網民分享未經審查的信息以及來自美國的可能的監視。這個法律如果以目前的形式通過、並得到強力實施的話,互聯網公司將需要付出很大成本來實施即時審查和刪貼義務以及實名制登記規定。這個法律也會限制外國公司提供某些網絡設備,導致更多中國公民因為分享被中國共產黨排斥的政治、社會、或宗教內容而被拘禁關押。

詳細鏈接


新媒體    公安人員將進駐主要互聯網公司

8月4日,中國公安部宣布將開始在主要互聯網公司設置“網安警務室”,派駐公安人員,以便及時打擊網絡犯罪。公安部指出的網絡威脅包括黑客攻擊、互聯網詐騙、黃色內容、以及個人資料偷竊等,但也提到了網絡謠言 – 這種說法常常寬指任何非官方的信息。人們擔心網警的進駐將會被用來確定和懲罰政治與宗教異見者。公安部沒有具體指出會向哪些公司派駐網警,但可能會包括行業之首如新浪、騰訊、阿裡巴巴、和百度。一家網絡安全咨詢公司的創立人張百川告訴《金融時報》說,盡管大型部署對政府來說可能有後勤上的困難,但在一個月內向幾個關鍵公司派駐公安人員是做得到的。2012年2月,報道說共產黨在新浪、搜狐、騰訊和網易等微博服務公司建立了黨的代表機構(《中國媒體快報》第47號)。

詳細鏈接


中國之外      好萊塢、流行歌星、和熱氣球

中國共產黨的信息控制和政治敏感常常影響到中國境外。以下是過去一個月報道的幾件事,顯示這一現像的復雜性和範圍:

  • 好萊塢修改電影《像素大戰》: 路透社7月24日報道說,根據泄露的索尼電影公司高管的電子郵件,因為擔心電影《像素大戰》引起中國審查人員不滿、從而影響這部電影進入快速增長的中國電影市場,索尼公司刪除了這部影片中的一些場景。比如說,被刪除的包括這部影片中中國長城成為外星人攻擊目標的場景。過去幾年來,許多好萊塢制片廠都出於同樣目的對他們在中國市場上映的影片進行了修改(見《中國媒體快報》第87號)。在這一例中,全球其他地方觀眾看到的版本也做了修改。索尼國際電影發行公司總裁Steven O’Dell在一個電子郵件中解釋了這一決定後面可能的邏輯:“我們得到的建議是改變所有版本,如果我們只改變中國版本,媒體就會指責我們,博客作者們就會比較不同版本,看到我們只改變了在中國發行的版本以取悅那裡的市場。”

  • 泰勒·斯威夫特與天安門: 英國《衛報》7月22日報道說,與流行歌星泰勒·斯威夫特新專輯《1989》相配套的商品在中國遇到了發行問題,因為專輯的名稱正好也是共產黨在北京武力鎮壓民主抗議者的年份,斯威夫特的名字縮寫則正好是1989年抗議現場天安門廣場的字首縮寫。配合她即將在中國進行的專輯《1989》巡回演出,斯威夫特與網購公司合伙出售她的個人品牌時裝。到目前為止,她的專輯本身還可以買到。一些網民擔心說,穿著斯威夫特品牌衣服的中國人有可能面臨逮捕,中央電視台在臉書上報道了斯威夫特品牌時裝的登場,但是除去了斯威夫特穿的T恤衫上“1989”的字樣。

  • ‘大爆炸’理論又回來了:7月22日,很受中國觀眾歡迎的美國電視節目“大爆炸理論”在搜狐網站恢復播放,管制機構審閱並批准播放最新一季節目。2014年4月,這個節目和另外其它幾個節目被突然從搜狐和其它幾個放錄像網站清除,盡管這個節目非常受歡迎,並且有法律協議允許播出(《中國媒體快報》第105號)。這個節目恢復播出又為制作這個節目的美國廣播電視公司CBS重新打開了一個高盈利市場。

  • 艾未未的英國簽證:7月31日,英國報紙報道說,英國批准向異議藝術家艾未未簽發六個月的簽證。艾未未計劃前往英國監督他在倫敦的一個展覽。這個決定是由英國內政大臣做出的。之前一個低級別官員只簽發給艾未未20天的簽證,理由是艾未未在他的簽證申請中沒有真實說明他過去的犯罪記錄。事實上,艾未未從未被判過任何罪行。2011年他曾被法外拘留,他的工作室曾被迫支付一筆巨額稅款,兩者顯然都是對他批評政府的懲罰。最初的簽證決定在中國和海外引發了對英國的批評,很可能導致了後來的改正以及書面致歉。中國當局四年前沒收了艾未未的護照,但在他出國旅行前一個月向他歸還了護照,使得他可以成行(見《中國媒體快報》第96號)。

  • 藏人“雪山獅子”氣球: 最近幾周裡,一個100英尺高、飄揚著藏人雪山獅子旗、由兩名英國公民駕駛的熱氣球參加了歐洲的熱氣球活動。據報道,中國駐法國、西班牙和英國的大使館都曾經與活動舉辦方聯系,試圖禁止這個熱氣球參加。8月4日,英國《衛報》報道說,布裡斯托爾熱氣球節的組織者拒絕了中國的要求。據說一封來自中國駐倫敦大使館政治處三秘的電子郵件以中英關系為理由,要求組織者取消這個熱氣球參與活動。

詳細鏈接  

 


未來看點

  • 維權律師打壓: 看哪些律師(如果有任何一人的話)會被定罪和判刑,因哪些行動被判刑,受到的指控是什麼,微信言論是否會用作將律師或活躍人士定罪的證據。 
  • 互聯網安全法:  觀察這個新法律的通過,是否會對其做任何修改以接近於有關隱私和自由表達的國際標准。如果通過的話,注意審查是否更加嚴厲,對實名制的實施是否更加嚴格。
  • 美中人權對話: 一年一度的美中人權於8月13日召開,觀察者應該注意在言論自由的問題上公開了什麼樣的討論內容,包括這個有待通過、很有問題的立法草案。同時也注意美國官員是否公開評論不久前開始的對人權律師的抓捕。這次抓捕發生在六月底美中戰略與經濟對話後不久。注意中國是否會因為習近平九月訪美而滿足美國提出的要求,如釋放政治犯。

 

 

 

 

中国媒体快报 第107号:2015年8月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0
chinese lawyers on simplified chinese page

自由之家关于中国新闻自由的报道与分析月报

头条新闻

  • 特写: 北京对维权律师的打压如何影响媒体自由
  • 官方媒体催大股市泡沫,网民幽默回应股市暴跌
  • 对中国领导人北戴河秘密会议的报道暗示党内斗争
  • 拟议中的网络安全法旨在钳紧互联网控制
  • 公安人员将进驻主要互联网公司
  • 中国之外:好莱坞、流行歌星、和热气球
  • 未来看点
  • 本月图片:释放律师

 

特写     北京对维权律师的打压如何影响媒体自由

莎拉∙库克
东亚资深研究分析员


本文2015年8月11日也在《外交家》网站发表。


过去一个月来,中国过当局对维权律师以及他们所代表的更广泛的“维权运动”进行了大规模打压。根据最新统计,从7月9日至今,中国多省市250名以上律师、律所工作人员、家庭成员、和活跃人士遭到抓捕或传唤。目前至少20人仍然在押或下落不明。其中几人可能面临严重的、出于政治动机的检控以及长刑。

可以理解,中国国内和外国评论大多集中在抓捕律师对法治的负面影响。但是对维权律师群体的攻击以及攻击的方式对新闻自由和互联网自由也有重要的影响。

中国官方媒体对抓捕维权律师的特写报道不出喉舌媒体的套路,与共产党迫害公民社会活跃人士如出一辙。首先是所谓的“网络失踪”,几个被抓捕的律师的名字很快变成了“敏感词”。这意味着现在去查找他们的名字,不是查不到,就是只能查到经过审查的链接。其次,7月14日,审查官员指示所有网站在报道抓捕律师的时候必须使用官方通稿,不可转载“非标准”来源的新闻。第三,中国的中央电视台播放了至少两位被抓律师被迫认罪的录像。这是习近平上台以来重新启用的毛泽东时代惯用的做法。

这次抓捕的另外三个方面显示共产党压制和操控信息升级,令人忧虑。

1. 在官方媒体上进行更大力度的抹黑:如同在其它威权国家的情况一样,在中国,公民社会活跃人士在被捕后,官方常常会在国家媒体上对他们进行抹黑和歪曲。但是共产党控制的媒体这次攻击维权运动的力度超乎寻常。这次发表的文章一是数量更多、更频繁,不仅包括报道,还包括匿名社论和装模作样的“专家意见”文章。攻击律师时所用的语言更加极端,包括诸如“重大犯罪团伙”、“勾连,”  “黑幕,” 以及 “不可告人”。

官方报道还使用剪裁过的录像、看似专业的信息图表、以及卡通来污蔑被抓捕的律师。这种全方位出动媒体进行妖魔化的做法非常类似毛泽东时代的政治运动的做法,与更近一些的全民打压运动、如1999年取缔法轮功时的做法也十分类似。这也许并不是偶然的类似,许多被拘禁的律师都曾经代理过法轮功当事人。

2. 首批微信逮捕:  中国维权律师非常喜欢使用腾讯社交平台微信以及类似的社交平台,包括腾讯的另一个社交服务平台QQ群以及由俄罗斯企业家开发的社交平台“电报”。这些工具使得一个封闭的朋友圈可以快速分享信息,与诸如新浪微博这种更加公众化的平台相比,受到的审查相对宽松一些。这些工具使得维权律师可以与需要辩护人的受害者相互取得联系、在敏感案件上分享建议、为遭受官方骚扰的普通公民以及律师同仁进行呼吁等。

尽管官方抓捕律师的凭据仍然不清楚,但是诸如《人民日报》这样的共产党报纸和电视的报道在描述维权律师如何在微信以及类似平台上进行协调时,使用了兴师问罪的口气。如果社交媒体的活动构成未来定罪的依据,这将会成为个人因为在微信上分享政治或社会内容而被监禁的首批案例。另一方面,在抓捕维权律师的最初几天,“电报”遭受了一次重大的阻断服务攻击,其亚太服务遭遇障碍,后在中国遭到封锁。“电报”的“秘密聊天”功能使得用户可以交换加密信息。

3. 对互联网倡导活动本身的攻击: 在中国,因网上言论而获罪并非新事,但是对使用互联网进行社会倡导活动进行这样的大规模污名化还是例外。当局对维权律师的指控之一是他们使用社交媒体和其它网络工具挑战官方对事件的报道,分享小型抗议的图片,引起更大范围的关注,向公众募捐,或为他们的当事人动员公众支持,以便获得司法同情。 

考虑到共产党对司法的政治影响,律师们要为他们的当事人获得更多保护、有时是获得自由,必须使用这样的策略。事实上,这次被抓捕的律师与活跃人士中有好几位过去几年里都曾在许多网络声援中起了关键作用,获得了国内以及国际媒体的报道,就权利问题引发了公共辩论,议题包括性骚扰、宗教自由、警察施暴等。在有些情况下还赢得了政府的让步。 

习近平上台以来关闭了公民社会原有的狭窄空间,在线上和线下都更强势地贯彻党的表述和官媒话语,维权运动打压升级则是这个更广泛的做法的一部分。 

抓捕维权律师的影响与后果远远不止于法律界。对活跃人士的微信言论进行可能的检控会对成千上万的中国用户当中造成寒蝉效应。同时,大量从这些被打压的维权律师那里获得帮助的公民将发现,维持他们的自由表达权是一件非常困难的事情。即使有胜任的律师勇敢地站出来取代那些被抓律师的位置(考虑到这个运动以往表现出的韧性这是很有可能会出现的情况),他们在如何为当事人辩护、如何为他们的释放或免受一面倒司法系统的虐待而发动声援时,会面临新的限制。

镇压维权律师对媒体自由来说、对中国公民发布和获得信息的能力来说也是一次倒退,而这样的能力对他们的良好状态和生活决定、对国家治理以及社会的长期活力都具有关键意义。

详细链接

照片: 中国人权


纸媒/广播   官方媒体催大股市泡沫,网民幽默回应股市暴跌 

中国股市6月12日开始暴跌,失去了相当于大约3.5万亿美元的价值。对中国股市泡沫破裂的回溯分析指出官方媒体在鼓吹股市中起的作用,而公众则通过官方媒体的话语和口气判断领导人的意图。共产党喉舌媒体在过去一年里发表多篇社论和文章,预测一个牛市,鼓动人们相信政府会确保这样一个牛市结果。

除了使用政府财政干预措施进行损害控制外,7月初,《人民日报》、《新京报》以及其它官方媒体都发表文章,敦促“理性与冷静”,并宣称对中国经济有信心。然后,7月23日,管制机构指示媒体“大幅减少关于股市的报道”,不再组织专家访谈以及深度解读,避免使用“暴涨”“暴跌”等词语,严格以监管部门正式发布的信息为依据等。 

尽管股市暴跌只对一小部分人口造成直接影响,对中国经济也没有太大影响,但是它却可能具有非常严重的政治影响。观察者们指出股市下跌对共产党合法性以及对习近平主席本人的损害。许多分析人士指出,中国官员是出于这样的政治动机、而不是良好的经济理由,采取强势干预措施,以制止股市进一步下滑。一些分析人士,如博客作者温云超,认为政权的不安全感与股市下跌,催化了七月对维权律师的抓博(见上)。

另一方面,值得注意的是,新浪微博似乎未对两类网民反应进行审查和删除:对证监会主席肖钢的愤怒评论(他也许会成为这次股灾的替罪羊),以及与股市相关的黑色幽默。股市下跌后第三个星期里,网上传得很广的一个段子说,“上个月,我吃什么狗吃什么。上星期狗吃什么我吃什么。这个星期我把狗吃了。” 

详细链接


新媒体   拟议中的网络安全法旨在钳紧互联网控制 


全国人大7月6日公布了《网络安全法》草案,截止8月5日前,征求公众意见。拟议中的法律看来要巩固新成立的国家网信办的协调作用,同时将中国当局已经在实施的互联网审查和监控措施通过法律化、制度化而得到进一步强化。比如说,该草案第53条和第57条要求互联网公司加强审查,更加强化实名制登记,不然将会受到惩罚,包括上至50万人民币(约$80,400美元)的罚款、关闭网站、或吊销执照。第50条允许当局在公共安全紧急状态下关闭互联网。这种做法过去六年来在新疆、西藏以及其它一些出现公众抗议的地方已经实施过。不过,这项法律还引进了新的措施,最引人注意的是要求公司将用户信息存储在中国境内;违反该法律的公司主管会受到个人罚款 。

中国境内的专家、国际人权组织、以及国际商界对此法律表示关注,尽管香港的一个研究者表示,这项法律为民营互联网公司“制订了相对比较全面的个人数据保护机制”。习近平上台以来,中国当局一直在试图关闭漏洞,在他们看来,这些漏洞允许网民分享未经审查的信息以及来自美国的可能的监视。这个法律如果以目前的形式通过、并得到强力实施的话,互联网公司将需要付出很大成本来实施即时审查和删贴义务以及实名制登记规定。这个法律也会限制外国公司提供某些网络设备,导致更多中国公民因为分享被中国共产党排斥的政治、社会、或宗教内容而被拘禁关押。

详细链接


新媒体   公安人员将进驻主要互联网公司 

8月4日,中国公安部宣布将开始在主要互联网公司设置“网安警务室”,派驻公安人员,以便及时打击网络犯罪。公安部指出的网络威胁包括黑客攻击、互联网诈骗、黄色内容、以及个人资料偷窃等,但也提到了网络谣言 – 这种说法常常宽指任何非官方的信息。人们担心网警的进驻将会被用来确定和惩罚政治与宗教异见者。公安部没有具体指出会向哪些公司派驻网警,但可能会包括行业之首如新浪、腾讯、阿里巴巴、和百度。一家网络安全咨询公司的创立人张百川告诉《金融时报》说,尽管大型部署对政府来说可能有后勤上的困难,但在一个月内向几个关键公司派驻公安人员是做得到的。2012年2月,报道说共产党在新浪、搜狐、腾讯和网易等微博服务公司建立了党的代表机构(《中国媒体快报》第47号)。

详细链接


户的控制    好莱坞、流行歌星、和热气球

中国共产党的信息控制和政治敏感常常影响到中国境外。以下是过去一个月报道的几件事,显示这一现象的复杂性和范围: 

  • 好莱坞修改电影《像素大战》:路透社7月24日报道说,根据泄露的索尼电影公司高管的电子邮件,因为担心电影《像素大战》引起中国审查人员不满、从而影响这部电影进入快速增长的中国电影市场,索尼公司删除了这部影片中的一些场景。比如说,被删除的包括这部影片中中国长城成为外星人攻击目标的场景。过去几年来,许多好莱坞制片厂都出于同样目的对他们在中国市场上映的影片进行了修改(见《中国媒体快报》第87号)。在这一例中,全球其他地方观众看到的版本也做了修改。索尼国际电影发行公司总裁Steven O’Dell在一个电子邮件中解释了这一决定后面可能的逻辑:“我们得到的建议是改变所有版本,如果我们只改变中国版本,媒体就会指责我们,博客作者们就会比较不同版本,看到我们只改变了在中国发行的版本以取悦那里的市场。”
  • 泰勒·斯威夫特与天安门:英国《卫报》7月22日报道说,与流行歌星泰勒·斯威夫特新专辑《1989》相配套的商品在中国遇到了发行问题,因为专辑的名称正好也是共产党在北京武力镇压民主抗议者的年份,斯威夫特的名字缩写则正好是1989年抗议现场天安门广场的字首缩写。配合她即将在中国进行的专辑《1989》巡回演出,斯威夫特与网购公司合伙出售她的个人品牌时装。到目前为止,她的专辑本身还可以买到。一些网民担心说,穿着斯威夫特品牌衣服的中国人有可能面临逮捕,中央电视台在脸书上报道了斯威夫特品牌时装的登场,但是除去了斯威夫特穿的T恤衫上“1989”的字样。
  •  ‘大爆炸’理论又回来了:7月22日,很受中国观众欢迎的美国电视节目“大爆炸理论”在搜狐网站恢复播放,管制机构审阅并批准播放最新一季节目。2014年4月,这个节目和另外其它几个节目被突然从搜狐和其它几个放录像网站清除,尽管这个节目非常受欢迎,并且有法律协议允许播出(《中国媒体快报》第105号)。这个节目恢复播出又为制作这个节目的美国广播电视公司CBS重新打开了一个高盈利市场。
  • 艾未未的英国签证:7月31日,英国报纸报道说,英国批准向异议艺术家艾未未签发六个月的签证。艾未未计划前往英国监督他在伦敦的一个展览。这个决定是由英国内政大臣做出的。之前一个低级别官员只签发给艾未未20天的签证,理由是艾未未在他的签证申请中没有真实说明他过去的犯罪记录。事实上,艾未未从未被判过任何罪行。2011年他曾被法外拘留,他的工作室曾被迫支付一笔巨额税款,两者显然都是对他批评政府的惩罚。最初的签证决定在中国和海外引发了对英国的批评,很可能导致了后来的改正以及书面致歉。中国当局四年前没收了艾未未的护照,但在他出国旅行前一个月向他归还了护照,使得他可以成行(见《中国媒体快报》第96号)。
  • 藏人“雪山狮子”气球:最近几周里,一个100英尺高、飘扬着藏人雪山狮子旗、由两名英国公民驾驶的热气球参加了欧洲的热气球活动。据报道,中国驻法国、西班牙和英国的大使馆都曾经与活动举办方联系,试图禁止这个热气球参加。8月4日,英国《卫报》报道说,布里斯托尔热气球节的组织者拒绝了中国的要求。据说一封来自中国驻伦敦大使馆政治处三秘的电子邮件以中英关系为理由,要求组织者取消这个热气球参与活动。

详细链接 


未来看点
 

  • 维权律师打压:看哪些律师(如果有任何一人的话)会被定罪和判刑,因哪些行动被判刑,受到的指控是什么,微信言论是否会用作将律师或活跃人士定罪的证据。
  • 互联网安全法:观察这个新法律的通过,是否会对其做任何修改以接近于有关隐私和自由表达的国际标准。如果通过的话,注意审查是否更加严厉,对实名制的实施是否更加严格。
  • 美中人权对话:一年一度的美中人权于8月13日召开,观察者应该注意在言论自由的问题上公开了什么样的讨论内容,包括这个有待通过、很有问题的立法草案。同时也注意美国官员是否公开评论不久前开始的对人权律师的抓捕。这次抓捕发生在六月底美中战略与经济对话后不久。注意中国是否会因为习近平九月访美而满足美国提出的要求,如释放政治犯。

 

中国媒体快报 第108号,2015年9月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0
winnie the pooh xi jinping

头条新闻


特写     习近平访美应成放松经济信息管控契机

莎拉∙库克
自由之家资深东亚研究分析员,《中国媒体快报》负责人

本文也发表于《金融时报》中文版2015年9月18日。

中国国家主席习近平将于9月22日开始对美国进行首次国事访问,届时美国政府应该寻求解决中国日益严苛的信息控制对两国经济造成的问题。

中共多年来通过不断升级和扩大的审查制度来捍卫其政治权力,这样做给美国经济造成了数亿美元的损失,同时也妨碍了美中关系。中国当局限制美国社交媒体和云服务进入中国,封锁美国媒体网站,限制中国观众观看美国娱乐产品。过去一个月来,随着中国股市新一轮的暴跌,北京方面出于政治动机而实施的审查制度对两国经济的影响变得更加突出。 

8月24日,上证综指下跌8.5%,创2007年来最大单日跌幅。之前的两个月里,中国股市已出现多次惊人的下挫,新出现的这次下跌则引发了全球股市抛售,加剧了美国、欧洲和亚洲市场的波动。

中国国有媒体最初的反应是沉默。中共机关报《人民日报》头版、中国中央电视台晚间的《新闻联播》节目、以及官方通讯社新华社网站首页全都没有提及这次股市重创,这种缄默至少持续了一天时间。与此同时,中国主要的搜索引擎则对越来越多的“股灾”搜索结果进行审查和删除。8月25日早上7时15分的百度搜索结果截屏显示有500万条结果,三个小时后,同样的搜索却显示只有290万条搜索结果。

尽管有这样强势的政府控制,许多中国人还是知道了股市遭受重创,并在其他地方寻求更多信息。公众从国际媒体的报道以及社交媒体上流传的网友分析中获得了信息。因此,国家媒体的缄默徒然加深了大众对政府的不信任,中国消费者和投资者本来就不高的信心也进一步受挫。而这一切偏偏发生在中国试图鼓励国内消费、降低对出口依赖的时候。进一步而言,官方审查与小道消息传播的结合增加了谣言出现的可能性和谣言的威力,很可能导致诸如银行挤兑或恐慌性抛售更多股票,进一步加重金融危机。

进一步而言,官方审查与小道消息传播的结合增加了谣言出现的可能性和谣言的威力,很可能导致诸如银行挤兑或恐慌性抛售更多股票,进一步加重金融危机。

几天后国有媒体终于打破沉默,报道的核心主线是为政府和党的高层领导开脱责任。评论人士海瑟•蒂蒙斯(Heather Timmons)和黃喆平整理出了中国国有媒体找到的五个“替罪羊”,其中包括美联储(Fed)。

更令人不安的是,当局把股灾部分怪罪到记者头上。《财经》杂志记者王晓璐遭到逮捕,并在在国家电视台上认罪。8月31日,看上去意志消沉的王晓璐出现在中国中央电视台的节目中,承认他在7月20日的文章中提供的信息是“私下听说的”,“造成了市场混乱和恐慌”。但是中国记者同行和媒体观察者指出,王晓璐所“招认”的做法是世界各地记者惯用的做法。同时,对上证综指的分析发现,王晓璐的文章发表后,股市其实连续涨了三天。

有分析认为,拘捕王晓璐的真正目的是吓唬记者,让他们按官方的意思报道,避免对经济进行深度调查报道,特别是在许多记者报道天津最近发生的化学品爆炸事故的余波时表现出智慧和违抗的姿态后。根据至少一名阅读财经读物的股市投资者的说法,9月的第一个星期,媒体的确让人感到噤若寒蝉。

经济报道所感受到的突然压力代表着官方态度的一个转变,因为财经媒体和其他新闻媒体相比,很长时间以来一直享受着较大的自由度,可以进行尺度相对比较大、比较独立的报道。

与此同时,当局在采取措施填补报道上的缺口。一份日期为9月7日的中共文件指示,要通过宣传报道描绘中国经济的光明前景,该文件说明了应采取哪些步骤“唱响中国经济光明论”,包括为“对内对外宣传”稿件准备选题。

这样的舆论操纵并非没有先例。“自由之家”(Freedom House) 2014年的一份报告对300多份审查和宣传指令进行分析后发现,就受操纵的频繁程度而言,经济主题的报道位居第七。但是随着经济的放缓,这种舆论操纵的广度和力度看来都在扩大。这是个危险的趋势。

经济报道中的信息自由流动在任何时候都很重要,中共过去一直隐含地承认这个事实,给予财经媒体更大的自由度。但在遇到不确定和危机的时候,保持信息透明尤其关键。

如果奥巴马总统希望为美国、中国和全球经济做出最有益的事情,那么他应该向习近平施压,令其转变方向,给予市场恰当浮动所需要的透明信息。

【 记者王晓璐被迫在中央电视台节目上承认,他7月20日的文章破坏了股市,但在文章发表后的三天里,股市实际上有了改善。王晓璐的案例被广泛认为是试图迁罪并恐吓财经记者。图像来源:Quartz】

 


纸媒/新闻媒体:在对天津爆炸的报道中,调查报道和微信发帖占据主导地位

8月12日晚上大约11:30,天津滨海港口区离一片居民区不远的一个储存有毒化学物的仓库发生了一系列巨大爆炸。这起工业事故最终导致150多人死亡,造成百万美元计的损失,并使得成千上万居民暂时无家可归。但与6月份发生的长江游船翻船事件不同,这一次,尽管官方试图限制非官方信息源的消息,社交媒体和商业报纸在报道中一马当先,向公众提供了重要的消息更新。几位观察人士将此活跃景象与2011年温州动车翻车的报道相提并论(见《中国媒体快报》第32号)。

爆炸发生几分钟后,社交媒体上就有人发帖报道,包括图片和录像。许多网络和传统媒体很快展开了报道和积极的调查,许多人将之看作是与官方审查抢时间,知道审查干预一定会如期而至。在接下来的日子里,网易、腾讯、和商业网站界面、诸如《南方周末》和《财新》这样相对市场化的媒体、甚至受政府控制更多的《新京报》都发表了自己的调查报道,对爆炸的原因、出事公司的人员以及他们的政治人脉、以及可能存在的官员失职提供了关键信息,有时是抗拒政府指令而这样做。在收集数据以及传播这两方面,传统媒体都表现出了大胆和智谋,包括使用无人飞行器和卫星图像获得图片,通过反复的头版头条报道以及微信发帖传播。在天津爆炸事件中,微信的作用似乎超过了新浪微博。

官方在对这一危机的信息管理上采取了惯常的做法。8月13日,国家政府和地方政府都发布了审查指令,指示媒体只能使用新华社通稿和其它“权威”消息来源,并禁止记者在个人社交账户上发表信息,命令将爆炸报道和图片从头条以及编辑推荐等显著位置撤下。根据对新浪微博删贴进行实时监测的香港大学Weiboscope,同一天,微博删贴增加了十倍,在接下来的许多天删贴量持续高于平均水平。与此同时,国家喉舌媒体试图把报道救援中的英雄事迹作为报道主体,或干脆对爆炸视若罔闻。爆炸发生后次日,天津电视台照常播放电视连续剧,而不是提供全时报道。当一个缺乏准备的官员尴尬地无法回答记者提出的问题时,中央电视台中断了对一个新闻发布会的现场报道

这样的做法看来是增加了公众的不信任和愤怒,促使许多人到其它信息源寻求信息。香港大学中国传媒研究计划的韩笑引述一套初步的微信统计数字说,“8月13日中国媒体机构的微信公号上有1,674篇关于天津爆炸的文章,其中55篇被阅读了10万次以上(其中不少被阅读了100万次以上)。”

这场悲剧的公共性质、它的规模以及它对中产家庭的重创给中国媒体提供了一个机会,使得它们可以抢在审查者之前,以这几年来日益钳紧的控制下很难见到的方式为大众提供新闻服务。


新闻媒体:阅兵激发威严感、爱国主义情绪和审查 

9月3日,中国举行了多年以来最大规模的阅兵,庆祝中国在第二次世界大战中驱除日本侵略者的胜利。年长的老兵与现役士兵、军车和飞机参加了这次阅兵。阅兵场面盛大,经高度排演,是对现代中国的强大进行的庆祝。但是它也充满了讽刺。习近平在他的讲话中17次提及“和平”,并宣布裁军30万,但是阅兵展示了核导弹以及其它最先进的武器,与此同时,大量中国人到日本度假,人满为患。许多中国观众对阅兵感到振奋,赞扬阅兵本身,或者从家庭记忆出发反思中国的长足发展。但社交媒体上也有许多人批评国家在经济放缓的当前在阅兵上的巨大耗费,审查者甚至删除了那些搞笑的帖子和图像,这表示他们很紧张。

虽然不少中国人对阅兵做出了发自内心的正面反应,共产党却不敢大意,在阅兵前和阅兵期间强化了审查。根据专门跟踪删贴的Free Weibo,阅兵当天,新浪微博上最热的话题是阅兵,删贴最重的话题也是阅兵。多个来源报告说,很多VPN和其它翻墙工具都遇到了阻碍。由位于加州的《中国数字时报》披露出来的中共审查和宣传指令,指示网站在8月24日至9月5日期间要仔细审查所有网上新闻和跟帖,“不得出现攻击党、国家、制度内容,”“要积极将正面阳光的网民跟帖置顶推广。” 


新闻媒体:谷歌试图为中国建立经审查的应用软件商店

位于美国的技术新闻网站“Information”9月4日报道说,互联网巨人谷歌正在寻求许可,早至今年秋天为它的Google Play应用软件商店设立一个专门的中国版本。这一拟议中的网上应用商店将不上架被中国政府认为不能接受的手机应用,如同苹果公司此前对它的应用软件商店所做的那样。此举可以改善谷歌在中国的市场,其安卓手机操作系统在中国虽然很普及,但却没有给公司带来多少收入。即使政府许可,谷歌在中国可能还是会处境艰难(见《中国媒体快报》第106号)。八月份,据说谷歌新的母公司“字母公司”在上网几个小时内便被专事互联网审查的中国防火墙封锁。2010年,谷歌出于安全考虑以及不愿满足中国政府的审查要求而从中国撤出其搜索引擎。


香港:报纸编辑的攻击者被定罪,雨伞运动领导人受到起诉

在两个涉及香港新闻自由和法治的案件中,袭击一名著名报纸编辑的歹徒8月20日被判罪;8月27日,香港2014年雨伞运动中的三名学生领袖被指控犯有非法集会以及其它相关罪行。

2014年2月袭击前《明报》总编辑刘进图的两名歹徒叶剑华和黄志华被判有罪,各获19年徒刑。他们告诉法官说,他们每个人获得了10万港币(约$12,900)酬金,但他们拒绝透露谁下令行凶。这两人用切肉刀袭击了刘进图,他的后背和腿受了重伤。这一事件在香港引发了抗议,公众要求强化对新闻自由的保护(见《中国媒体快报101号)

被起诉的三名学生领袖是学民思潮共同创始人以及很快成为2014年雨伞运动代表人物的黄之锋、香港专上学生联会前秘书长周永康、以及现任秘书长罗冠聪。他们因在导致雨伞运动爆发的一系列事件中所起的作用而被检控,特别是冲入有围墙的香港政府总部外的“公民广场”。尽管受到了这些检控,黄之锋告诉记者说,他一点也不后悔占领公民广场的举动。如果被判有罪的话,他有可能面临最长五年的刑期。

黄之锋、罗冠聪和两名反对派活跃人士7月14日被控在2014年6月的一次抗议中“妨碍警务人员”。在那次抗议中,他们烧毁了中国国务院发布的香港白皮书。8月28日,这四人在法庭应讯,要求永久搁置聆讯。如果获准的话,他们将不会面临审判。对这一申请的听证定于10月进行。

在这两起针对活跃人士的案件中,律师支持者都指出,指控在事件发生满一年后才提出,这令人怀疑这些指控的目的是威慑雨伞运动一周年时发生新一轮的抗议。同样参加了去年抗议的学民思潮成员林淳轩质疑为什么去年被录到殴打手无寸铁的抗议者的警察仍然未被检控,暗示检察官在使用双重标准。


中国之外:邦乔维, GitHub遭受攻击,以及维人记者的兄弟们

  • 邦乔维的中国巡回演唱突然取消:《洛杉矶时报》9月9日报道说,美国流行乐歌星邦乔维首次中国巡回演唱离在上海以及北京的演唱会只差几天的时候被取消。巡回演唱主办机构AEG Live Asia 在其新浪微博账号上宣布了这一消息,只说是出于“意外原因”取消并给已经购票的粉丝提供退款。中国网民猜测说,中国官员可能听说了在邦乔维2010年在台湾的演唱会上,一个录像背景显示了西藏精神领袖达赖喇嘛。中国当局之前曾经禁止那些对支持西藏自由的歌星,即使这样的表示发生在中国之外。在唱片销售收缩的时代,这样的限制对歌星是一个损害,会导致他们在共产党政治敏感的问题上进行自我审查。
     
  • 中国软件开发工程师被迫删除代码后, Github遭到网络攻击: 8月25日,位于美国的电脑代码仓库GitHub遭到了阻断服务攻击(DDoS),导致连线问题。网站很快开始修复工作,并在四小时内恢复了服务。GitHub三月时曾遭受一次大规模阻断服务攻击,那次攻击的来源被追溯到中国境内的服务器。人们认为这是中国政府的一种新工具,研究者们称之为“大炮”。 那次攻击显然是针对管理《纽约时报》中文网以及反审查组织GreatFire.org内容的GitHub服务器,这两个网站均被中国当局封锁。最近这次攻击的来源眼下还没有确定。但是,它发生于两名设计翻墙软件的中国开发人员从GitHub上删除了他们的翻墙软件GoAgent 以及ShadowSocks代码后几天。他们显然是受到中国当局胁迫后这样做的。恐吓软件开发人员是一个相对来说比较新的现象。虽然这两名开发员删除了他们的代码,但其他GitHub用户克隆了被删除的代码以便保存这些工具。这也许是网站招致阻断服务攻击的原因。
     
  • 美籍维吾尔人记者的兄弟被审判:8月19日和25日,美国政府资助的自由亚洲电台维吾尔记者肖赫来∙霍休的两个生活在新疆的兄弟被控“危害国家安全罪”和“泄露国家机密”开庭审判,尽管他们既不是记者也不是活跃人士。至九月中为止,法庭还没有宣布判决。这些检控被广泛认为是出于政治动机,中国当局试图以此让肖赫来∙霍休停止在美国报道新疆。在对新疆的突发报道中,肖赫来一直起着关键的作用。近年来新疆地区民族关系趋于紧张,镇压频繁,审查极其严苛。肖赫来的另一个弟弟去年因类似指控而被判五年徒刑。美国国会议员已经多次与中国当局提出这一家人的案例。

未来看点

  • 习近平访美:看美国总统奥巴马是否会就习近平上台后钳紧审查、打压公民社会做出公开评论。就中国国内的媒体报道而言,看看中国是否会有选择地刊登讲话内容,掐去现场直播中任何意外发生的事情,包括总统提到中国恶劣的人权记录时。看中国政府是否会更加严控翻墙工具,因为在习近平访美期间,网友可能会极有兴趣阅读被封锁的美国媒体报道。
     
  • 天津大爆炸报道:一方面,在这样一个艰难时刻,中国媒体在天津爆炸中的出色表现对记者的专业士气来说是一个很好的提升。但是另一方面,2011年温州动车事故后出现类似的社交媒体分享和记者抗命,以及2013年初发生的《南方周末》反审查抗议,都引发了更加严格的掌控,共产党试图重新获得控制。看微信是否会出现新的限制(包括对媒体公号的限制)、记者是否会受到莫须有的指控(如王晓璐案件)、审查者是否会继续回溯性地删除有关调查报道。
     
  • Google Play: 看谷歌是否真的会在今年秋天为它的Google Play应用软件商店设立一个专门的中国版本。果然如此的话,有下列问题值得我们探究:哪些应用中国用户无法购买?是否与苹果下架的应用类似?谷歌的自我审查是更严还是更松?网友反应如何?2010年谷歌搜索引擎撤出、2014年谷歌邮箱被加剧封锁的时候,网友均一片哀嚎。

 

中國媒體快報 第108號,2015年9月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0

頭條新聞


特寫     習近平訪美應成放松經濟信息管控契機

莎拉∙庫克
自由之家資深東亞研究分析員,《中國媒體快報》負責人

本文也發表於《金融時報》中文版2015年9月18日。

中國國家主席習近平將於9月22日開始對美國進行首次國事訪問,屆時美國政府應該尋求解決中國日益嚴苛的信息控制對兩國經濟造成的問題。

中共多年來通過不斷升級和擴大的審查制度來捍衛其政治權力,這樣做給美國經濟造成了數億美元的損失,同時也妨礙了美中關系。中國當局限制美國社交媒體和雲服務進入中國,封鎖美國媒體網站,限制中國觀眾觀看美國娛樂產品。過去一個月來,隨著中國股市新一輪的暴跌,北京方面出於政治動機而實施的審查制度對兩國經濟的影響變得更加突出。

8月24日,上證綜指下跌8.5%,創2007年來最大單日跌幅。之前的兩個月裡,中國股市已出現多次驚人的下挫,新出現的這次下跌則引發了全球股市拋售,加劇了美國、歐洲和亞洲市場的波動。

中國國有媒體最初的反應是沉默。中共機關報《人民日報》頭版、中國中央電視台晚間的《新聞聯播》節目、以及官方通訊社新華社網站首頁全都沒有提及這次股市重創,這種緘默至少持續了一天時間。與此同時,中國主要的搜索引擎則對越來越多的“股災”搜索結果進行審查和刪除。8月25日早上7時15分的百度搜索結果截屏顯示有500萬條結果,三個小時後,同樣的搜索卻顯示只有290萬條搜索結果。

盡管有這樣強勢的政府控制,許多中國人還是知道了股市遭受重創,並在其他地方尋求更多信息。公眾從國際媒體的報道以及社交媒體上流傳的網友分析中獲得了信息。因此,國家媒體的緘默徒然加深了大眾對政府的不信任,中國消費者和投資者本來就不高的信心也進一步受挫。而這一切偏偏發生在中國試圖鼓勵國內消費、降低對出口依賴的時候。進一步而言,官方審查與小道消息傳播的結合增加了謠言出現的可能性和謠言的威力,很可能導致諸如銀行擠兌或恐慌性拋售更多股票,進一步加重金融危機。

進一步而言,官方審查與小道消息傳播的結合增加了謠言出現的可能性和謠言的威力,很可能導致諸如銀行擠兌或恐慌性拋售更多股票,進一步加重金融危機。

幾天後國有媒體終於打破沉默,報道的核心主線是為政府和黨的高層領導開脫責任。評論人士海瑟•蒂蒙斯(Heather Timmons)和黃喆平整理出了中國國有媒體找到的五個“替罪羊”,其中包括美聯儲(Fed)。

更令人不安的是,當局把股災部分怪罪到記者頭上。《財經》雜志記者王曉璐遭到逮捕,並在在國家電視台上認罪。8月31日,看上去意志消沉的王曉璐出現在中國中央電視台的節目中,承認他在7月20日的文章中提供的信息是“私下聽說的”,“造成了市場混亂和恐慌”。但是中國記者同行和媒體觀察者指出,王曉璐所“招認”的做法是世界各地記者慣用的做法。同時,對上證綜指的分析發現,王曉璐的文章發表後,股市其實連續漲了三天。

有分析認為,拘捕王曉璐的真正目的是嚇唬記者,讓他們按官方的意思報道,避免對經濟進行深度調查報道,特別是在許多記者報道天津最近發生的化學品爆炸事故的余波時表現出智慧和違抗的姿態後。根據至少一名閱讀財經讀物的股市投資者的說法,9月的第一個星期,媒體的確讓人感到噤若寒蟬。

經濟報道所感受到的突然壓力代表著官方態度的一個轉變,因為財經媒體和其他新聞媒體相比,很長時間以來一直享受著較大的自由度,可以進行尺度相對比較大、比較獨立的報道。

與此同時,當局在采取措施填補報道上的缺口。一份日期為9月7日的中共文件指示,要通過宣傳報道描繪中國經濟的光明前景,該文件說明了應采取哪些步驟“唱響中國經濟光明論”,包括為“對內對外宣傳”稿件准備選題。

這樣的輿論操縱並非沒有先例。“自由之家”(Freedom House) 2014年的一份報告對300多份審查和宣傳指令進行分析後發現,就受操縱的頻繁程度而言,經濟主題的報道位居第七。但是隨著經濟的放緩,這種輿論操縱的廣度和力度看來都在擴大。這是個危險的趨勢。

經濟報道中的信息自由流動在任何時候都很重要,中共過去一直隱含地承認這個事實,給予財經媒體更大的自由度。但在遇到不確定和危機的時候,保持信息透明尤其關鍵。

如果奧巴馬總統希望為美國、中國和全球經濟做出最有益的事情,那麼他應該向習近平施壓,令其轉變方向,給予市場恰當浮動所需要的透明信息。

【記者王曉璐被迫在中央電視台節目上承認,他7月20日的文章破壞了股市,但在文章發表後的三天裡,股市實際上有了改善。王曉璐的案例被廣泛認為是試圖遷罪並恐嚇財經記者。圖像來源:Quartz】


紙媒/新聞媒體:在對天津爆炸的報道中,調查報道和微信發帖占據主導

8月12日晚上大約11:30,天津濱海港口區離一片居民區不遠的一個儲存有毒化學物的倉庫發生了一系列巨大爆炸。這起工業事故最終導致150多人死亡,造成百萬美元計的損失,並使得成千上萬居民暫時無家可歸。但與6月份發生的長江游船翻船事件不同,這一次,盡管官方試圖限制非官方信息源的消息,社交媒體和商業報紙在報道中一馬當先,向公眾提供了重要的消息更新。幾位觀察人士將此活躍景像與2011年溫州動車翻車的報道相提並論(見《中國媒體快報》第32號)。

爆炸發生幾分鐘後,社交媒體上就有人發帖報道,包括圖片和錄像。許多網絡和傳統媒體很快展開了報道和積極的調查,許多人將之看作是與官方審查搶時間,知道審查干預一定會如期而至。在接下來的日子裡,網易、騰訊、和商業網站界面、諸如《南方周末》和《財新》這樣相對市場化的媒體、甚至受政府控制更多的《新京報》都發表了自己的調查報道,對爆炸的原因、出事公司的人員以及他們的政治人脈、以及可能存在的官員失職提供了關鍵信息,有時是抗拒政府指令而這樣做。在收集數據以及傳播這兩方面,傳統媒體都表現出了大膽和智謀,包括使用無人飛行器和衛星圖像獲得圖片,通過反復的頭版頭條報道以及微信發帖傳播。在天津爆炸事件中,微信的作用似乎超過了新浪微博。

官方在對這一危機的信息管理上采取了慣常的做法。8月13日,國家政府和地方政府都發布了審查指令,指示媒體只能使用新華社通稿和其它“權威”消息來源,並禁止記者在個人社交賬戶上發表信息,命令將爆炸報道和圖片從頭條以及編輯推薦等顯著位置撤下。根據對新浪微博刪貼進行實時監測的香港大學Weiboscope,同一天,微博刪貼增加了十倍,在接下來的許多天刪貼量持續高於平均水平。

與此同時,國家喉舌媒體試圖把報道救援中的英雄事跡作為報道主體,或干脆對爆炸視若罔聞。爆炸發生後次日,天津電視台照常播放電視連續劇,而不是提供全時報道。當一個缺乏准備的官員尷尬地無法回答記者提出的問題時,中央電視台中斷了對一個新聞發布會的現場報道

這樣的做法看來是增加了公眾的不信任和憤怒,促使許多人到其它信息源尋求信息。香港大學中國傳媒研究計劃的韓笑引述一套初步的微信統計數字說,“8月13日中國媒體機構的微信公號上有1,674篇關於天津爆炸的文章,其中55篇被閱讀了10萬次以上(其中不少被閱讀了100萬次以上)。”

這場悲劇的公共性質、它的規模以及它對中產家庭的重創給中國媒體提供了一個機會,使得它們可以搶在審查者之前,以這幾年來日益鉗緊的控制下很難見到的方式為大眾提供新聞服務。


新聞媒體: 閱兵激發威嚴感、愛國主義情緒和審查

9月3日,中國舉行了多年以來最大規模的閱兵,慶祝中國在第二次世界大戰中驅除日本侵略者的勝利。年長的老兵與現役士兵、軍車和飛機參加了這次閱兵。閱兵場面盛大,經高度排演,是對現代中國的強大進行的慶祝。但是它也充滿了諷刺。習近平在他的講話中17次提及“和平”,並宣布裁軍30萬,但是閱兵展示了核導彈以及其它最先進的武器,與此同時,大量中國人到日本度假,人滿為患。許多中國觀眾對閱兵感到振奮,贊揚閱兵本身,或者從家庭記憶出發反思中國的長足發展。但社交媒體上也有許多人批評國家在經濟放緩的當前在閱兵上的巨大耗費,審查者甚至刪除了那些搞笑的帖子和圖像,這表示他們很緊張。

雖然不少中國人對閱兵做出了發自內心的正面反應,共產黨卻不敢大意,在閱兵前和閱兵期間強化了審查。根據專門跟蹤刪貼的Free Weibo,閱兵當天,新浪微博上最熱的話題是閱兵,刪貼最重的話題也是閱兵。多個來源報告說,很多VPN和其它翻牆工具都遇到了阻礙。由位於加州的《中國數字時報》披露出來的中共審查和宣傳指令,指示網站在8月24日至9月5日期間要仔細審查所有網上新聞和跟帖,“不得出現攻擊黨、國家、制度內容,”“要積極將正面陽光的網民跟帖置頂推廣。”


新聞媒體:谷歌試圖為中國建立經審查的應用軟件商店

位於美國的技術新聞網站“Information”9月4日報道說,互聯網巨人谷歌正在尋求許可,早至今年秋天為它的Google Play應用軟件商店設立一個專門的中國版本。這一擬議中的網上應用商店將不上架被中國政府認為不能接受的手機應用,如同蘋果公司此前對它的應用軟件商店所做的那樣。此舉可以改善谷歌在中國的市場,其安卓手機操作系統在中國雖然很普及,但卻沒有給公司帶來多少收入。即使政府許可,谷歌在中國可能還是會處境艱難(見《中國媒體快報》第106號)。八月份,據說谷歌新的母公司“字母公司”在上網幾個小時內便被專事互聯網審查的中國防火牆封鎖。2010年,谷歌出於安全考慮以及不願滿足中國政府的審查要求而從中國撤出其搜索引擎。


香港:報紙編輯的攻擊者被定罪,雨傘運動領導人受到檢控

在兩個涉及香港新聞自由和法治的案件中,襲擊一名著名報紙編輯的歹徒8月20日被判罪;8月27日,香港2014年雨傘運動中的三名學生領袖被指控犯有非法集會以及其它相關罪行。

2014年2月襲擊前《明報》總編輯劉進圖的兩名歹徒葉劍華和黃志華被判有罪,各獲19年徒刑。他們告訴法官說,他們每個人獲得了10萬港幣(約$12,900)酬金,但他們拒絕透露誰下令行凶。這兩人用切肉刀襲擊了劉進圖,他的後背和腿受了重傷。這一事件在香港引發了抗議,公眾要求強化對新聞自由的保護(見《中國媒體快報》第101號)。

被起訴的三名學生領袖是學民思潮共同創始人以及很快成為2014年雨傘運動代表人物的黃之鋒、香港專上學生聯會前秘書長周永康、以及現任秘書長羅冠聰。他們因在導致雨傘運動爆發的一系列事件中所起的作用而被檢控,特別是衝入有圍牆的香港政府總部外的“公民廣場”。盡管受到了這些檢控,黃之鋒告訴記者說,他一點也不後悔占領公民廣場的舉動。如果被判有罪的話,他有可能面臨最長五年的刑期。

黃之鋒、羅冠聰和兩名反對派活躍人士7月14日被控在2014年6月的一次抗議中“妨礙警務人員”。在那次抗議中,他們燒毀了中國國務院發布的香港白皮書。8月28日,這四人在法庭應訊,要求永久擱置聆訊。如果獲准的話,他們將不會面臨審判。對這一申請的聽證定於10月進行。

在這兩起針對活躍人士的案件中,律師支持者都指出,指控在事件發生滿一年後才提出,這令人懷疑這些指控的目的是威懾雨傘運動一周年時發生新一輪的抗議。同樣參加了去年抗議的學民思潮成員林淳軒質疑為什麼去年被錄到毆打手無寸鐵的抗議者的警察仍然未被檢控,暗示檢察官在使用雙重標准。


中國之外:邦喬維, GitHub遭受攻擊,以及維人記者的兄弟們

中國共產黨的信息管控與政治敏感常常會在中國以外產生影響。以下是過去一個月裡發生的幾件事,可以說明這一現象:

  • 邦喬維的中國巡回演唱突然取消:《洛杉磯時報》9月9日報道說,美國流行樂歌星邦喬維首次中國巡回演唱離在上海以及北京的演唱會只差幾天的時候被取消。巡回演唱主辦機構AEG Live Asia 在其新浪微博賬號上宣布了這一消息,只說是出於“意外原因”取消並給已經購票的粉絲提供退款。中國網民猜測說,中國官員可能聽說了在邦喬維2010年在台灣的演唱會上,一個錄像背景顯示了西藏精神領袖達賴喇嘛。中國當局之前曾經禁止那些對支持西藏自由的歌星,即使這樣的表示發生在中國之外。在唱片銷售收縮的時代,這樣的限制對歌星是一個損害,會導致他們在共產黨政治敏感的問題上進行自我審查。
  • 中國軟件開發工程師被迫刪除代碼後,Github遭到網絡攻擊: 8月25日,位於美國的電腦代碼倉庫GitHub遭到了阻斷服務攻擊(DDoS),導致連線問題。網站很快開始修復工作,並在四小時內恢復了服務。GitHub三月時曾遭受一次大規模阻斷服務攻擊,那次攻擊的來源被追溯到中國境內的服務器。人們認為這是中國政府的一種新工具,研究者們稱之為“大炮”。 那次攻擊顯然是針對管理《紐約時報》中文網以及反審查組織GreatFire.org內容的GitHub服務器,這兩個網站均被中國當局封鎖。最近這次攻擊的來源眼下還沒有確定。但是,它發生於兩名設計翻牆軟件的中國開發人員從GitHub上刪除了他們的翻牆軟件GoAgent 以及ShadowSocks代碼後幾天。他們顯然是受到中國當局脅迫後這樣做的。恐嚇軟件開發人員是一個相對來說比較新的現像。雖然這兩名開發員刪除了他們的代碼,但其他GitHub用戶克隆了被刪除的代碼以便保存這些工具。這也許是網站招致阻斷服務攻擊的原因。
  • 美籍維吾爾人記者的兄弟被審判:8月19日和25日,美國政府資助的自由亞洲電台維吾爾記者肖赫來∙霍休的兩個生活在新疆的兄弟被控“危害國家安全罪”和“泄露國家機密”開庭審判,盡管他們既不是記者也不是活躍人士。至九月中為止,法庭還沒有宣布判決。這些檢控被廣泛認為是出於政治動機,中國當局試圖以此讓肖赫來∙霍休停止在美國報道新疆。在對新疆的突發報道中,肖赫來一直起著關鍵的作用。近年來新疆地區民族關系趨於緊張,鎮壓頻繁,審查極其嚴苛。肖赫來的另一個弟弟去年因類似指控而被判五年徒刑。美國國會議員已經多次與中國當局提出這一家人的案例。

未來看點

  • 習近平訪美:看美國總統奧巴馬是否會就習近平上台後鉗緊審查、打壓公民社會做出公開評論。就中國國內的媒體報道而言,看看中國是否會有選擇地刊登講話內容,掐去現場直播中任何意外發生的事情,包括總統提到中國惡劣的人權記錄時。看中國政府是否會更加嚴控翻牆工具,因為在習近平訪美期間,網友可能會極有興趣閱讀被封鎖的美國媒體報道。
  • 天津大爆炸報道:一方面,在這樣一個艱難時刻,中國媒體在天津爆炸中的出色表現對記者的專業士氣來說是一個很好的提升。但是另一方面,2011年溫州動車事故後出現類似的社交媒體分享和記者抗命,以及2013年初發生的《南方周末》反審查抗議,都引發了更加嚴格的掌控,共產黨試圖重新獲得控制。看微信是否會出現新的限制(包括對媒體公號的限制)、記者是否會受到莫須有的指控(如王曉璐案件)、審查者是否會繼續回溯性地刪除有關調查報道。
  • Google Play: 看谷歌是否真的會在今年秋天為它的Google Play應用軟件商店設立一個專門的中國版本。果然如此的話,有下列問題值得我們探究:哪些應用中國用戶無法購買?是否與蘋果下架的應用類似?谷歌的自我審查是更嚴還是更松?網友反應如何?2010年谷歌搜索引擎撤出、2014年谷歌郵箱被加劇封鎖的時候,網友均一片哀嚎。

 

China Media Bulletin: Issue No. 108

$
0
0
xi jinping as winnie the pooh

Issue No. 108: September 2015

HEADLINES SEPTEMBER 2015


 

FEATURE:  On U.S. Visit, Xi Jinping Should Answer for Censorship’s Economic Damage

By Sarah Cook
Senior Research Analyst for East Asia and China Media Bulletin director

When Chinese president Xi Jinping makes his first state visit to the United States, set to begin September 22, the White House will need to address the problems that the Communist Party’s mounting information controls pose for both countries’ economies.

The Party’s sprawling efforts to defend its political monopoly through censorship have for years been costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars, while at the same time hampering U.S.-China relations. The Chinese authorities have restricted access to U.S. social media and cloud services, blocked U.S. news websites, and limited Chinese fans’ ability to view U.S. entertainment products. However, the intersection between Beijing’s politically motivated censorship and the two countries’ economies has become even starker over the past month, following the Chinese stock market’s latest plunge.

On August 24, the Shanghai Composite Index dropped 8.5 percent, its sharpest decline since 2007. Coming after two months of alarming slides, the new drop spurred a global stock sell-off, adding to market volatility in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

The initial response by Chinese state media was silence. The front page of the Party–run People’s Daily, the state broadcaster’s flagship evening news program, and the official Xinhua news agency’s homepage all omitted mention of the market turmoil for at least one day. Meanwhile, major Chinese search engines censored a growing number of results for the term “stock market disaster.” Screenshots of Baidu search results at 7:15 a.m. on August 25 show over 5 million results. Results for the same query just three hours later displayed only 2.9 million.

Despite robust government controls, many Chinese heard about the market crash and searched elsewhere for details. Millions obtained it from reports by international news outlets and analysis by fellow netizens that was circulated on social media. Consequently, the state media blackout simply added to public distrust in the government and low confidence among Chinese consumers and investors, at a time when Beijing is trying to encourage domestic consumption and reduce dependence on exports. 

Moreover, this combination of official censorship and unofficial information-sharing increases the risk and potency of rumors that could worsen a financial crisis by, for example, causing runs on banks or panicked selling of more stocks.

When state media finally broke their silence after a few days, the coverage followed a core theme of deflecting blame from the government and senior party officials. Commentators Heather Timmons and Zheping Huang have identified five state media “scapegoats,” including the U.S. Federal Reserve.

More disturbingly, the authorities cast blame on journalist Wang Xiaolu of Caijing, a respected financial magazine, arresting him and parading him on state television. On August 31, a downcast Wang appeared on China Central Television to confess that information he provided in a July 20 article was “based on hearsay” and had “caused panic and disorder at [the] stock market.” But fellow Chinese journalists and media watchers noted that the acts to which Wang “confessed” were common journalistic practices around the world. Moreover, analysis of the Shanghai Composite Index found that the market actually improved for three days after Wang’s article.

It appears that the true goal behind Wang’s detention is to intimidate journalists into following the official line and avoiding strong investigative reporting on the economy, particularly after many displayed ingenuity and defiance while covering the aftermath of the recent Tianjin chemical explosions. According to at least one stock-market investor and reader of financial publications, a chilling effect was already tangible in the first week of September.

The sudden pressure on economic reporting represents a shift in official attitude because financial publications have long been given more leeway than other news outlets to engage in aggressive, independent journalism. 

Meanwhile, the authorities are moving to fill the gap in coverage. A leaked Communist Party directive from September 7 revealed plans to project a rosy view of China’s flagging economy. The instructions—issued by the party’s Central Propaganda Department and distributed by, among others, Xinhua’s editor in chief—outline a series of steps that should be taken to promote “the discourse on China’s bright economic future.” These include preparing detailed drafts for forthcoming articles that will serve as both “domestic- and foreign-facing propaganda.”

Such manipulation is not entirely new. A 2014 Freedom House analysis of over 300 censorship and propaganda directives found that the economy was the seventh most commonly targeted topic. But the scale and scope of the effort appears to be expanding as the economy slows down. This is a dangerous trend. 

A free flow of information about the economy is important at any time—a fact that the Communist Party itself has implicitly acknowledged in the past by giving business newspapers a longer leash than most. But in times of uncertainty and crisis, transparency becomes even more critical.

If President Obama wants to do what is best for the U.S., Chinese, and global economies, he will press Xi to reverse course and give markets the information they need to function properly.
 

PHOTO: Journalist Wang Xiaolu was forced to confess on state television that his July 20 article disrupted the stock market, but the market actually improved for three days following its publication. Wang’s case is widely seen as an attempt to scapegoat and intimidate financial reporters. Photo Credit: Quartz 


 

PRINT / NEW MEDIA: Investigative reporting, WeChat posts lead coverage of Tianjin disaster 

On August 12 at around 11:30 p.m., a series of massive explosions struck a hazardous-materials warehouse near a residential complex in Tianjin’s Binhai port area. The industrial accident would ultimately claim over 150 lives, cause millions of dollars in damage, and leave tens of thousands of people temporarily homeless. But in contrast to another fatal accident earlier this year, the capsizing of a cruise ship on the Yangtze River in June, social media and commercial news outlets set the news agenda and provided important updates to millions of people despite official efforts to restrict alternative sources of information. Several observers compared the dynamics to those surrounding the Wenzhou bullet train crash of 2011 (see CMB No. 32).

Within minutes of the initial explosion, the first social-media posts—including photos and videos—had been published. Quick reporting and aggressive investigations by a wide range of online and traditional news outlets soon followed, in what many saw as a race against time before official censors inevitably intervened. Over the coming days, at times in defiance of government directives, online portals like NetEase and Tencent, business news websites like Jiemian, commercial media like Southern Weekly and Caixin, and even the more government-controlled Beijing News each contributed critical information from their own investigations regarding the cause of the blasts, the people and political connections behind the company responsible, and potential official culpability. Traditional media demonstrated boldness and sophistication both in gathering data, including from drones and satellite imagery, and in their dissemination, via repeated front-page coverage and posts on WeChat—a platform whose influence in this incident appeared to outweigh that of the Sina Weibo microblogging service.

Official efforts to manage information about the crisis often followed familiar patterns. On August 13, both national and local authorities issued censorship directives instructing media outlets to use only copy from the official Xinhua news agency and other “authoritative” sources, telling journalists not to post information to their personal social-media accounts, and ordering the removal of news and images of the explosions from prominent spots like top headlines and editors’ recommendations. Deletion of microblog posts jumped tenfold that day and remained above average during subsequent days, according to data gathered by the Hong Kong University–based Weiboscope, which tracks real-time censorship on Sina Weibo.

Meanwhile, state media attempted to trumpet a narrative of heroism by those conducting rescue efforts, or simply ignored the disaster. Tianjin TV aired soap operas and normal news programming on the day after the explosion, rather than providing full-time coverage. The main state broadcaster, China Central Television, cut short the live broadcast of a press conference when officials were embarrassingly ill-prepared to answer even basic questions from journalists.

Such actions appeared to increase public distrust and anger, and compelled many to seek out alternative sources of information. According to one set of preliminary statistics from WeChat cited by Han Xiao of Hong Kong University’s China Media Project, “there were 1,674 articles dealing with the Tianjin explosions on the public accounts of Chinese media organizations on August 13, of which 55 articles were read 100,000 times or more (including quite a few read more than 1 million times).”

The public nature of the tragedy, its scale, and its impact on middle-class families provided Chinese media with an opportunity to outpace censors and serve news consumers in a way that has become rare in recent years under ever-tightening official controls.


NEW MEDIA: Military parade inspires awe, patriotism, and censorship

On September 3, China held its largest military parade in years, celebrating the country’s victory in World War II and the expulsion of brutal Japanese invaders. Elderly veterans of the war participated alongside uniformed soldiers, military vehicles, and aircraft. The event was an impressive, highly choreographed celebration of modern China’s strength. But it was also rife with contradictions. As President Xi Jinping mentioned “peace” 17 times in his speech and announced plans to reduce the size of the People’s Liberation Army by 300,000 people, nuclear missiles and other state-of-the art weaponry were on display and thousands of Chinese traveled to Japan for the holiday. Many Chinese viewers reacted positively to the celebration, praising the parade itself or reflecting on how far China had come based on their personal family memories. But social media comments also included criticism of the parade’s huge cost amid a slowing economy, and censors displayed their nervousness by deleting even humorous posts and images. 

Indeed, despite what seems to have been a sincere positive reaction to the pageantry, the Communist Party was not taking chances, intensifying censorship before and during the event. The parade was both the most widely discussed and most censored topic on the Sina Weibo microblogging platform that day, according to Free Weibo, which tracks deleted posts. Numerous sources reported increased obstruction of virtual private networks (VPNs) and other circumvention tools. Censorship and propaganda guidelines leaked by the California-based China Digital Times instructed websites to carefully review all online news and web comments from August 24 to September 5 to ensure that they did not attack the party or political system, and to actively promote “positive, sunny netizen commentary.” Propaganda on the parade was amplified for weeks before the event, as a deflating stock-market bubble and disastrous chemical explosions weakened the economic pillar of the party’s legitimacy, leaving nationalism as a critical source of popular support.


NEW MEDIA: Google attempting to launch censored app store for China

The Information, a U.S.-based technology news website, reported on September 4 that the internet giant Google was seeking approval to create a special version of the Google Play app store for China as early as this fall. The proposed online market would block mobile applications deemed objectionable by the Chinese government, much as Apple has done with its app store. The move would bolster Google’s position in China at a time when its Android mobile operating system is proliferating but does not generate much revenue for the company. Even with government approval, Google will likely continue to fight an uphill battle in China (see CMB No. 106). In August, the country’s internet censorship apparatus, commonly known as the Great Firewall, reportedly blocked the website of Google’s new parent company Alphabet Inc. within hours of it going live. In 2010, Google withdrew its search engine from China over security concerns and a reluctance to comply with official censorship demands. 


  

HONG KONG: Editor’s attackers convicted, Umbrella Movement leaders prosecuted

In two cases with implications for press freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, the attackers of a prominent newspaper editor were convicted on August 20, and three student leaders of the 2014 prodemocracy Umbrella Movement were charged with unlawful assembly and related crimes on August 27.

The two men found guilty of attacking former Ming Pao editor Kevin Lau in February 2014—Yip Kim-wah and Wong Chi-wah—were sentenced to 19 years in prison. They told the judge they had each been paid HK$100,000 (US$12,900), but refused to say who ordered the attack. Lau suffered severe wounds to his back and legs when the men struck him with a meat cleaver, and the incident sparked public protests calling for greater press freedom protections (see CMB No. 101).

The three student leaders charged the following week were Joshua Wong, cofounder of a youth protest group called Scholarism, who quickly became the face of the 2014 protests; Alex Chow, former leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students; and Nathan Law, the federation’s current leader. They are being prosecuted for their role in events that triggered that autumn’s huge rallies and sit-ins, particularly protesters’ initial decision to break into a fenced square outside the Hong Kong government headquarters. Despite the charges, Wong told reporters he did not regret the move to occupy the square. If convicted, he could face a maximum of five years in prison.

Wong, Law, and two opposition activists had separately been charged on July 14 with “obstructing police” during a June 2014 protest in which they burned copies of a white paper issued by China’s State Council. On August 28, the four appeared in court and requested a permanent stay of proceedings; if this were granted, they would not face trial. A hearing on the application was set for October.

In both cases against the activists, lawyers and supporters have noted that the charges were not filed until a full year after the incidents in question, raising suspicions that the timing was designed to deter a new round of protests on the anniversary of the 2014 events. Derek Lam, a member of Scholarism who was also involved in the previous year’s protests, questioned why police who were filmed beating an unarmed protester have yet to be charged, suggesting that prosecutors were using a double standard. 


 

BEYOND CHINA: Bon Jovi, GitHub attack, and Uighur journalist’s brothers

The Chinese Communist Party’s information controls and political sensitivities often have an impact far beyond China’s borders. The following are a few incidents reported over the past month that illustrate this phenomenon:

  • Bon Jovi China tour abruptly canceled: On September 9, the Los Angeles Times reported that the first tour in China by popular U.S. singer Jon Bon Jovi was canceled just days before his band was scheduled to perform in Shanghai and Beijing. The tour organizer, AEG Live Asia, announced the cancelation on its Sina Weibo microblogging account, attributing it to “unforeseen reasons” and offering refunds to fans who had purchased tickets. Chinese netizens speculated that officials had gotten wind of a 2010 Bon Jovi concert in Taiwan, during which a video backdrop showed an image of Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Chinese authorities have previously barred performances by musicians who express support for the cause of freedom in Tibet, even when the gesture occurs outside China. Such restrictions harm performers in an era of shrinking album sales, and could induce self-censorship on issues that are politically sensitive to the Communist Party.
     
  • GitHub hit with cyberattack after Chinese developers forced to delete code: On August 25, GitHub, a U.S.-based computer code repository, came under a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that caused connectivity problems. The site quickly began efforts to mitigate the attack, and within four hours service was restored. GitHub was subjected to a massive DDOS attack in March that was subsequently traced to servers in China and attributed to a new government tool that researchers termed the “Great Cannon.” That assault was apparently intended to target sections of GitHub’s servers that hosted the New York Times Chinese-language version as well as content by the anticensorship group GreatFire.org, both of which are blocked in China. The source of the latest attack was not immediately identified. However, it occurred a few days after two Chinese developers of circumvention tools deleted the code for their programs—GoAgent and ShadowSocks—from GitHub, apparently under pressure from the authorities. The intimidation of software programmers is a relatively new phenomenon in China. Although the two developers removed their projects, other GitHub users cloned the deleted code to preserve the tools, which may have prompted the DDoS attack. 
     
  • Brothers of American Uighur journalist put on trial: On August 19 and 25, two brothers of Shohret Hoshur, a Uighur journalist for U.S. government–funded Radio Free Asia, were tried for allegedly “endangering state security” and “leaking state secrets,” though they are not reporters or activists themselves. As of mid-September, no verdicts had been announced. The prosecutions have been widely seen as a politically motivated attempt by the Chinese authorities to silence Shohret Hoshur’s reporting from the United States. He has played a key role in providing reliable coverage of breaking news events in Xinjiang, a region that has suffered from ethnic tensions, security crackdowns, and extreme censorship in recent years. One of his other brothers, Tudaxun Hoshur, was sentenced last year to five years in prison on similar charges. Members of the U.S. Congress have repeatedly raised the family’s case with the Chinese authorities.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

  • Xi Jinping’s U.S. visit: Watch for whether President Obama makes any public comments about the increased censorship and repression of civil society that have occurred since Xi Jinping took power. In terms of media coverage in China, watch for selective transcripts and blacked-out live broadcasts of anything unexpected—including references by either president to China’s poor human rights record—and more restrictions on circumvention tools as netizens are enticed to access blocked U.S. media accounts of the visit.
     
  • Tianjin explosion coverage: On the one hand, the media’s strong performance could give a morale boost to professional journalists at a difficult time. On the other hand, similar outbursts of social-media sharing and journalistic defiance after the 2011 Wenzhou train crash and the 2013 anticensorship protests at Southern Weekly have triggered tighter restrictions as the Communist Party attempts to regain control. Watch for new limitations on WeChat (including for public accounts managed by news outlets), punishment of journalists on trumped-up charges (as has already occurred with Wang Xiaolu’s case), and continued retroactive deletion of investigative reports about the explosion as censors catch up with the coverage. 
     
  • Google Play: Watch for whether Google indeed launches a China-specific version of its Google Play app store this fall. If so, questions worth exploring include: Which apps are unavailable to Chinese audiences? Are they similar to those removed by Apple, or is Google’s self-censorship more—or less—strict? What is the response from netizens, many of whom mourned the loss of Google’s search engine in 2010 and intensified blocking of Gmail in 2014?

 

中国媒体快报 第109号,2015年10月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0

主要新闻


特写: 奥习协议不会解决中国对网络安全的威胁

莎拉库克,自由之家资深东亚研究分析员,《中国媒体快报》负责人

 

中国国家主席习近平上月访问美国,最受瞩目的一个成果是两国领导人在针对美国目标的网络攻击、特别是网络间谍问题上达成的一个协议。习近平和美国总统奥巴马做出承诺,避免进行、或者在知情的情况下支持出于经济目的的网络偷窃行为。

尽管这个承诺展示了双边的好意,但是人们有种种理由怀疑这个承诺是否能有效遏制商业间谍以及中国政府相关机构对大量美国目标进行的侵入和毁坏性的网络攻击这一更广泛的问题。

缺乏明确的标准或者核实机制:对这个协议进行了分析的安全专家指出,协议用词模糊,对什么是可接受或不可接受的活动缺乏定义,这意味着这个协议还需要进一步的谈判才会有实际成效。同样,协议也没有制定客观标准来衡量一方或者另一方是否遵守了自己的承诺。这些问题,再加上大多数网络攻击中追查责任人的难度,使得这个协议实施起来非常困难。

协议未提出于政治动机的网络攻击:从隐私和言论自由的角度看,更大的问题在于,这个网络偷窃协议只集中在经济领域。如此,奥巴马和习近平忽略了中国政府机构针对美国媒体公司、人权组织、活跃人士、以及美国政府机构发动的日益猖狂、精密和范围广泛的网络攻击。假定这样一个协议过去五年已经存在,它仍然不会阻止2010年对谷歌的攻击(黑客袭击了人权捍卫者以及其它目标的谷歌邮箱)、2012年对《纽约时报》的攻击(寻求该报对前总理温家宝财富报道的信息源)、或者今年3月对代码分享平台GitHub的大规模阻断服务攻击。这样一个协议也不会阻止对海外中国人、藏人和维吾尔人活跃分子经常性的钓鱼攻击。美国政府人员也越来越多地受到这样的攻击。

没有涉及中国防火墙所制造的问题:间接而言,任何将中国政府的互联网政策去政治化的协议都是忽略中国国家防火墙所制造的安全问题。这个防火墙是北京用来监督和过滤中国与世界互联网通讯的系统。

过去这个月,两起事件彰显了这一问题。一是苹果手机操作系统上的应用遭到病毒攻击。9月17日,包括腾讯微信和网易在内的中国最流行的一些大众应用发现携带病毒,影响了数以百万计的智能手机用户,是苹果历史上至今所遭受的最大的此类攻击。

这些应用之所以受到入侵,是因为它们使用苹果标准的XCode之外的另一种代码。 “全球之声”的 Oiwan Lam在分析软件开发者为什么会使用一种不太安全的代码时指出,由于在中国和国际互联网连线很慢(这是中国国家防火墙对内容进行实时过滤的一个直接结果),下载XCode需要很长时间,一些程序员因此转向防火墙内更容易使用、但也更容易遭受病毒攻击的替代品。

在本月第二起事件中,Palo Alto Networks的研究者10月4日报告了一个专门针对苹果产品的恶意程序。这一次,一个中国营销公司利用互联网用户希望翻墙的愿望,说服他们下载一个受到病毒感染的应用。这个病毒软件允许营销公司控制用户的电话,在上面做手脚,如将他们的Safari网络浏览器开向一个显示客户产品或广告的网页。

上述两起事件都很快得到了解决,没有给消费者造成长远危害。但是利用同样心理的未来攻击就不见得这样无害了。安全分析人员还发现,2015年3月对GitHub 的攻击是由他们称为“大炮”的一种工具实施的。这种内设于中国国家防火墙的武器将大量前往百度中国服务器的旁观者网络交通 – 大多数来自香港和台湾 – 改变方向,淹没和瘫痪这个位于美国的代码分享网站。

到头来,行动会比词语声音更大。在接下来的六个月,安全专家将密切追踪和调查中国对美国公司和其它目标的网络入侵,希望他们的工作会为这个协议是否制止了攻击、或者减缓了攻击的强度和密度提供证据。

与此同时,奥巴马政府将会具备两个途径向中国政府寻求答案以及要求后者将违反者绳之以法:一是双边对话,二是正在进行中的应对系统。美国还将继续考虑对那些被发现从网络间谍获益的中国公司进行制裁。制裁威胁看来至少起到了短期作用:10月12日,《华盛顿邮报》报道说,中国官方第一次逮捕了由美国官员点名的黑客。

白宫的一个事实呈表指出,这些新的沟通途径可以总体解决“恶意网络活动”问题。这给美国官员留下了将调查扩大到商业间谍外的空间。如果出于政治动机的攻击也包含在内的话,美国和中国的互联网用户、民间社会、和媒体机构将从中受益。这样的努力可以从预计今年底召开的第一次双边对话开始。

与此同时,对奥习协议进行了分析的安全专家似乎都同意,他们不会很快失业。9月29日,网络安全公司KnowBe4对那些希望受到保护、不受来自中国的网络侵入的人提出了一个严厉警示:“你基本上得靠自己了。”


纸媒 / 广播: 习近平访美期间官媒美化领导人形象,淡化双边分歧

中国国家主席习近平9月22日至28日访美期间,中国国家媒体播放了大量但有选择的报道,旨在美化习的形象。报道将习近平塑造成一个在国际舞台上受到欢迎的政治家,代表着一个与美国平起平坐的强大中国。审查者、记者和宣传部门对这次访问不遗余力地进行了正面渲染,而美国媒体对这次访问的报道则展示了双边紧张关系。另一方面,对习近平访问的报道也被同时来访的罗马天主教教皇方济各以及美国众议院议长约翰∙贝纳突然辞职事件所冲淡。

中国官方媒体的报道密切报道了习近平行程中所受到的欢迎,从华盛顿儿童合唱团的表演到白宫的21响礼炮。民族主义倾向强烈的《环球时报》说,习近平的讲话获得了“如潮掌声”。网络新闻网站赞扬奥巴马用“你好”欢迎习近平。主要新闻报道除了报道这对夫妇受到的热烈欢迎,还对习近平的菜谱以及他妻子的衣装津津乐道。毫不令人意外的是,报道省略了民主活动人士、法轮功学员、维吾尔人、藏人对人权状况的抗议。官媒的报道多次提到北京所谓的“新型大国关系”概念,以显示中国和美国平起平坐的地位,但是他们没有说的是,美国并未接受这个概念。这个概念似乎把较小国家的利益置于从属地位外,此外美国还有其它考虑。

在新浪微博,《跟习大大访美》这个录像本星期最为流行,相关的帖子据说有5亿以上的点阅。但是,网上聊天受到严格监控,批评话语遭到删除。为了指导网上公共舆论,中国国家互联网信息办公室在9月22日的一个指令中指示中国新闻机构的手机应用在习近平访美期间要把中国境内“负面新闻”的通知限制到不超过三条,以免转移这次访美的积极影响。违反指令的机构将面临通知功能被取消10天的惩罚。

Lowy Institute的Merrian Varral在一个详细的分析中指出,在夏天发生天津爆炸、股票市场下跌、经济减缓之际,习近平的声誉遭到打击,这次访问“为强化他在国内的合法性提供了一个理想的机会”。但是对国际观众来说,中国国家媒体夸大的正面语调并不那么成功。在被中国禁止的推特上,9月23日,中国人权律师高智晟对他在押期间遭受酷刑的最新披露超过了习近平访美的标签。《人民日报》制作的一个外国人赞美中国领导人习大大“可爱”、像“大哥”一样的录像更多地遭到了嘲笑而不是欣赏。


纸媒 / 新媒体: 审查者快速压制与广西爆炸事件相关的新闻报道和网络发帖

与中国国庆日开始的黄金周同步,9月30日和10月1日,广西柳州发生了17起连环爆炸,炸死至少10人,炸伤大约50人。爆炸发生在政府办公场所、一个购物中心、一个医院、以及居民区。10月1日是中国共产党1949年建政周年日,是一个政治敏感时段。网上最早流通的照片显示瓦砾成堆的街道、部分倒塌的楼房、以及腾空的烟尘。新浪和其它网站很快便开始实时播送并开辟了专题网页。

不过根据《中国数字时报》透露的一个宣传指令,不出几个小时,共产党中宣部以及其它审查机关便采取了行动。指令限制记者进行现场报道,限制其他人进行独立的新闻收集,禁止开设专题,并且必须删除所有近距离照片。媒体和网站要按新华社等发稿为准。这样的指令非常常见。自由之家2014对审查指令进行分析后发现,与公共安全、包括暴力攻击的新闻报道在受审查最严重的内容中位居第三。

柳州的网警直接找到用户,要求他们删除新浪微博上有关爆炸的帖子。最早的帖子据说都被撤下;根据追踪微博删贴的“自由微博”,与柳州爆炸相关的关键词成为微博上删得最严重的内容。

官方媒体接下来声称, 33岁的石场工人韦银勇是作案人,他已经在其中一次爆炸中身亡。报道说韦银勇使用了包裹炸弹、遥控装置和不知情的快递员来投递和引爆他的自制炸弹。根据当地警察的说法,韦银勇的行为是“犯罪”行为,不是“恐怖主义”。警察说,他家拥有的石场遭到村民举报,他对政府的处理方式不满。

考虑到对这一事件的深度监控,一些互联网用户怀疑这不是全部的故事。另一些观察者则注意到中国媒体和网站在对广西爆炸进行低调报道的同时,却对美国俄勒冈州10月1日发生的枪击事件进行大肆渲染。


纸媒 / 新媒体: 政府近期的让步掩盖仍在进行的打压

过去一个月对几起涉及记者和网上活跃人士案件的处理显示,中国当局在一些战略时刻有时做一些松动,但这些举动常常掩盖了新的或者持续的信息管控和打压异见的努力。

  • 习近平访美前的意外让步:在习近平访美前不久,中国当局的两个积极决定似乎向美国表达了好意。一是《纽约时报》记者储百亮获许在9月21日回到中国。在中国当局拒绝给他更新记者签证后,他于2012年12月被迫离开中国。二是2012年帮助盲人活动人士陈光诚逃离法外软禁、进入美国大使馆的民间学者郭玉闪9月15日获释。郭玉闪是一个社会倡导型民间研究智库的负责人,2015年1月被拘留,被当局指控非法印刷书籍。尽管郭玉闪已经取保获释,但这些指控仍未撤销。国际大赦的William Nee告诉媒体说,释放郭玉闪虽然是积极的,但“它也符合我们过去几十年看到的一个模式,就是在国际重大访问之前释放一两个异见分子。”
     
  • 商人博主被拘留:9月9日,海外中文媒体和国际媒体姗姗来迟地报道了博客作者、企业家信力建8月22日遭到拘留的消息。在中国南方经营最大的私营教育企业的信力建被指控故意销毁会计凭证,但是他的支持者和朋友说,他因为向自由派学者和流亡记者提供资助而成为政府的打压目标。他的逮捕符合自由之家在2015年的报告《政治局的难题》中指出的趋向,即中国正在加大对公民意识较强的民间企业家的打压力度。
     
  • 对艺术家工作室的深度监控,首都街头:著名艺术家和异见者艾未未自2011年被法外秘密关押80天后第一次出国,近日又返回中国。艾未未10月5日透露,他在装修工作室的过程中发现了隐藏的监听装置。艾未未在推特和Instagram上贴了窃听器照片,据信这些装置已经被安装了几年。同一天,共产党喉舌《人民日报》宣称,北京警察的录像监控系统实现了首都“全城覆盖”,“没有一个角落能够逃脱‘天网’”,电子眼数量比去年增加29%。

香港:自由派法律学者升职被阻,引发对学术自由的担心

在香港最负盛名的高等学府香港大学,校委会9月29日以12票反对、8票赞成的结果否决了法律教授陈文敏的副校长任命。陈文敏是一个专家委员会选出的唯一符合资格的副校长人选,而这个职位在人事任命和预算决策上具有很大影响。对遴选委员会这一罕见的否决以及对投票不寻常的延迟,加上亲北京媒体对陈文敏的经历和人格进行的攻击,使得人们担忧这个决定是一个有政治动机的决定,会为学术自由带来负面影响。

根据路透社报道,香港亲北京媒体大约发表了300篇以上谗言陈文敏的文章,指控他是去年香港雨伞运动背后的一个主要人物。尽管陈文敏的一些同事、包括香港大学法律教授戴耀廷在雨伞运动中扮演了重要角色,陈文敏一直表示,他愿意在中国人大提议的选举框架内工作,而后者是雨伞运动坚决拒绝的。他具有这种温和与和解的姿态居然还成为诬陷和惩罚的对象,这导致很多观察者认为,对他的升职的拒绝是要警告学术界其他人,不要支持民主倡导者。

香港学生和学者以及香港外的学生和学者对陈文敏的遭遇表达了强烈反对。研究中国法律的著名学者、纽约大学教授孔杰荣称学术委员会的投票是“一个丑闻”。 香港大学学生在投票当天举行了烛光守夜,具有7,800 名成员的香港大学校友会表达了对陈文敏的支持。校委会投票后数日,10月5日,香港大学法律系表达了对陈文敏的支持,指出他的深厚资历。之前泄露出来的校委会会议消息说,一些校委会成员为自己投否决票找理由,说陈文敏仅仅因为是个“亲善的人”才获得推举。

另一方面,支持陈文敏的香港大学副校长马斐森的电子邮件被黑客入侵,并且被亲北京的媒体发布,人们另外担心监控对学术自由的影响以及中央政府黑客与香港媒体之间可能进行的勾结。


中国之外: 联合国恐吓,泰国防火墙,缅甸抓捕

中国共产党的信息管控和政治敏感常常在中国境外产生影响。以下是过去一个月报道的几起反映这个现象的事件:

  • 中国的批评者在联合国面临恐吓:10月6日,路透社发表了一份调查报道,指出中国外交人员以及至少34个政府控制的非政府组织如何在联合国人权理事会上压制对中国人权记录的批评。他们的手法包括违反理事会规定,拍照前来作证的酷刑受害者;给联合国施压,不给予活动人士认证;打断受害者的发言;用政府控制的非政府组织的人填充会场和讨论会,盖过对中国违反人权的指控发言。
     
  • 泰国军政府尝试类似中国那样的互联网防火墙Telecom Asia 9月23日报道说,泰国网民发现了泰国军事统治者的一道命令,要求将这个国家与外界的互联网通讯中心化,像中国那样实行更为严格的互联网审查。报道说,这条内阁指令指示警察和政府部门“建立起一个单独的互联网门户,以便控制不良网站,控制海外流入泰国的信息。”在自由之家互联网自由索引中,泰国被列为“不自由”国家,因为泰国当局已经在封锁大量网站,并迫害那些张贴批评内容的用户。
     
  • 维权律师未成年的儿子在缅甸被绑架:被关押的维权律师王宇16岁的儿子包卓轩10月6日在缅甸和中国边境不远的一个宾馆与同行的两名活动人士被警察带走。报道说他试图逃离中国,前往美国。这是过去三个月以来包卓轩第二次被警察带走。7月9日,他在北京首都机场被逮捕。尽管当局在两天后释放了他,但是他们却扣押了他的护照。他的母亲同一天被从家中带走,紧接着中国政府对维权律师发起了没有先例的大规模抓捕。王宇遭到了中央电视台以及其它国家媒体的污名化对待(见《中国媒体快报》第107号。截至10月12日,包卓轩据信被软禁在家中。
     
  • PlayStation 4的销售受到审查制度的影响:索尼电脑娱乐公司总裁Andrew House在九月份的东京游戏展上告诉记者说,该公司的PlayStation 4在中国的销售不如预期。去年中国管制机构解除了对游戏机长达14年的禁令后,这个装置今年三月份开始在中国销售。但是电脑和手机游戏已经在市场上立足;宽泛和模糊的审查规则,加上上海政府文化部门审批过程缓慢也影响了这款游戏机的销售。不过House重申了他的乐观,他说中国市场“对游戏这种娱乐媒介具有巨大的潜力。”
     
  • 中国对日本演员的拒绝导致好莱坞电影延后七年:惊悚片《上海》10月2日在剧院上映,制片人Harvey Weinstein告诉《好莱坞报道》说,因为中国政府反对使用一名日本演员,这部影片的发行被推迟了七年。Weinstein说,在这部电影的剧本2008年被通过并且开始拍摄后,因为中日关系紧张,中国管制机构要求Weinstein把日本演员渡边谦换成一个美国演员。制片人拒绝了这一要求,中国当局因此收回了原已发给制片厂在上海拍摄的许可。制片厂不得不更换拍摄地点、双倍增加预算、额外募集基金,最终将制片时间表延迟到七年以后。

 

未来看点

美中网络安全:看看是否有具体证据显示中国政府直接或非直接支持的网络经济间谍有任何下降,美国官员在今年晚些时候的双边对话中是否会提出出于政治动机、针对美国目标的网络攻击问题。

北京全覆盖录像监控:注意来自活跃人士、法轮功学员或访民的消息,看看他们在公共场所非正式聚会、散发传单、或从事草根人权活动时是否会被更加容易地认定和拘押。

万达购买英国连锁影院: 最近有报道说,中国亿万富翁王健林的大连万达在考虑购买英国奥迪恩连锁影院。这个交易,与万达之前在美国和澳大利亚购买的影院一道,将会使万达公司对中国境外数以千计的电影院具有控制权。注意这个购买交易是否会被证实。在今后的一些年里,看看这一控制权是否会对电影制作和放映产生影响 – 是否不再有批评中国的电影,或者在电影中出现亲北京的倾向。

中國媒體快報 第109號,2015年10月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0

主要新聞


特寫: 奧習協議不會解決中國對網絡安全的威脅

莎拉∙庫克,自由之家資深東亞研究分析員,《中國媒體快報》負責人

 

中國國家主席習近平上月訪問美國,最受矚目的一個成果是兩國領導人在針對美國目標的網絡攻擊、特別是網絡間諜問題上達成的一個協議。習近平和美國總統奧巴馬做出承諾,避免進行、或者在知情的情況下支持出於經濟目的的網絡偷竊行為。

盡管這個承諾展示了雙邊的好意,但是人們有種種理由懷疑這個承諾是否能有效遏制商業間諜以及中國政府相關機構對大量美國目標進行的侵入和毀壞性的網絡攻擊這一更廣泛的問題。

缺乏明確的標准或者核實機制:對這個協議進行了分析的安全專家指出,協議用詞模糊,對什麼是可接受或不可接受的活動缺乏定義,這意味著這個協議還需要進一步的談判才會有實際成效。同樣,協議也沒有制定客觀標准來衡量一方或者另一方是否遵守了自己的承諾。這些問題,再加上大多數網絡攻擊中追查責任人的難度,使得這個協議實施起來非常困難。

協議未提出於政治動機的網絡攻擊:從隱私和言論自由的角度看,更大的問題在於,這個網絡偷竊協議只集中在經濟領域。如此,奧巴馬和習近平忽略了中國政府機構針對美國媒體公司、人權組織、活躍人士、以及美國政府機構發動的日益猖狂、精密和範圍廣泛的網絡攻擊。假定這樣一個協議過去五年已經存在,它仍然不會阻止2010年對谷歌的攻擊(黑客襲擊了人權捍衛者以及其它目標的谷歌郵箱)、2012年對《紐約時報》的攻擊(尋求該報對前總理溫家寶財富報道的信息源)、或者今年3月對代碼分享平台GitHub的大規模阻斷服務攻擊。這樣一個協議也不會阻止對海外中國人、藏人和維吾爾人活躍分子經常性的釣魚攻擊。美國政府人員也越來越多地受到這樣的攻擊。

沒有涉及中國防火牆所制造的問題:間接而言,任何將中國政府的互聯網政策去政治化的協議都是忽略中國國家防火牆所制造的安全問題。這個防火牆是北京用來監督和過濾中國與世界互聯網通訊的系統。

過去這個月,兩起事件彰顯了這一問題。一是蘋果手機操作系統上的應用遭到病毒攻擊。9月17日,包括騰訊微信和網易在內的中國最流行的一些大眾應用發現攜帶病毒,影響了數以百萬計的智能手機用戶,是蘋果歷史上至今所遭受的最大的此類攻擊。

這些應用之所以受到入侵,是因為它們使用蘋果標准的XCode之外的另一種代碼。全球之聲的 Oiwan Lam在分析軟件開發者為什麼會使用一種不太安全的代碼時指出,由於在中國和國際互聯網連線很慢(這是中國國家防火牆對內容進行實時過濾的一個直接結果),下載XCode需要很長時間,一些程序員因此轉向防火牆內更容易使用、但也更容易遭受病毒攻擊的替代品。

在本月第二起事件中,Palo Alto Networks的研究者10月4日報告了一個專門針對蘋果產品的惡意程序。這一次,一個中國營銷公司利用互聯網用戶希望翻牆的願望,說服他們下載一個受到病毒感染的應用。這個病毒軟件允許營銷公司控制用戶的電話,在上面做手腳,如將他們的Safari網絡瀏覽器開向一個顯示客戶產品或廣告的網頁。

上述兩起事件都很快得到了解決,沒有給消費者造成長遠危害。但是利用同樣心理的未來攻擊就不見得這樣無害了。安全分析人員還發現,2015年3月對GitHub 的攻擊是由他們稱為“大炮”的一種工具實施的。這種內設於中國國家防火牆的武器將大量前往百度中國服務器的旁觀者網絡交通 – 大多數來自香港和台灣 – 改變方向,淹沒和癱瘓這個位於美國的代碼分享網站。

到頭來,行動會比詞語聲音更大。在接下來的六個月,安全專家將密切追蹤和調查中國對美國公司和其它目標的網絡入侵,希望他們的工作會為這個協議是否制止了攻擊、或者減緩了攻擊的強度和密度提供證據。

與此同時,奧巴馬政府將會具備兩個途徑向中國政府尋求答案以及要求後者將違反者繩之以法:一是雙邊對話,二是正在進行中的應對系統。美國還將繼續考慮對那些被發現從網絡間諜獲益的中國公司進行制裁。制裁威脅看來至少起到了短期作用:10月12日,《華盛頓郵報》報道說,中國官方第一次逮捕了由美國官員點名的黑客。

白宮的一個事實呈表指出,這些新的溝通途徑可以總體解決“惡意網絡活動”問題。這給美國官員留下了將調查擴大到商業間諜外的空間。如果出於政治動機的攻擊也包含在內的話,美國和中國的互聯網用戶、民間社會、和媒體機構將從中受益。這樣的努力可以從預計今年底召開的第一次雙邊對話開始。

與此同時,對奧習協議進行了分析的安全專家似乎都同意,他們不會很快失業。9月29日,網絡安全公司KnowBe4對那些希望受到保護、不受來自中國的網絡侵入的人提出了一個嚴厲警示:“你基本上得靠自己了。”

 


紙媒 / 廣播: 習近平訪美期間官媒美化領導人形像,淡化雙邊分歧

中國國家主席習近平9月22日至28日訪美期間,中國國家媒體播放了大量但有選擇的報道,旨在美化習的形像。報道將習近平塑造成一個在國際舞台上受到歡迎的政治家,代表著一個與美國平起平坐的強大中國。審查者、記者和宣傳部門對這次訪問不遺余力地進行了正面渲染,而美國媒體對這次訪問的報道則展示了雙邊緊張關系。另一方面,對習近平訪問的報道也被同時來訪的羅馬天主教教皇方濟各以及美國眾議院議長約翰∙貝納突然辭職事件所衝淡。

中國官方媒體的報道密切報道了習近平行程中所受到的歡迎,從華盛頓兒童合唱團的表演到白宮的21響禮炮。民族主義傾向強烈的《環球時報》說,習近平的講話獲得了“如潮掌聲”。網絡新聞網站贊揚奧巴馬用“你好”歡迎習近平。主要新聞報道除了報道這對夫婦受到的熱烈歡迎,還對習近平的菜譜以及他妻子的衣裝津津樂道。毫不令人意外的是,報道省略了民主活動人士、法輪功學員、維吾爾人、藏人對人權狀況的抗議。官媒的報道多次提到北京所謂的“新型大國關系”概念,以顯示中國和美國平起平坐的地位,但是他們沒有說的是,美國並未接受這個概念。這個概念似乎把較小國家的利益置於從屬地位外,此外美國還有其它考慮。

在新浪微博,《跟習大大訪美》這個錄像本星期最為流行,相關的帖子據說有5億以上的點閱。但是,網上聊天受到嚴格監控,批評話語遭到刪除。為了指導網上公共輿論,中國國家互聯網信息辦公室在9月22日的一個指令中指示中國新聞機構的手機應用在習近平訪美期間要把中國境內“負面新聞”的通知限制到不超過三條,以免轉移這次訪美的積極影響。違反指令的機構將面臨通知功能被取消10天的懲罰。

Lowy Institute的Merrian Varral在一個詳細的分析中指出,在夏天發生天津爆炸、股票市場下跌、經濟減緩之際,習近平的聲譽遭到打擊,這次訪問“為強化他在國內的合法性提供了一個理想的機會”。但是對國際觀眾來說,中國國家媒體誇大的正面語調並不那麼成功。在被中國禁止的推特上,9月23日,中國人權律師高智晟對他在押期間遭受酷刑的最新披露超過了習近平訪美的標簽。《人民日報》制作的一個外國人贊美中國領導人習大大“可愛”、像“大哥”一樣的錄像更多地遭到了嘲笑而不是欣賞。


紙媒 / 新媒體 -- 審查者快速壓制與廣西爆炸事件相關的新聞報道和網絡發帖

與中國國慶日開始的黃金周同步,9月30日和10月1日,廣西柳州發生了17起連環爆炸,炸死至少10人,炸傷大約50人。爆炸發生在政府辦公場所、一個購物中心、一個醫院、以及居民區。10月1日是中國共產黨1949年建政周年日,是一個政治敏感時段。網上最早流通的照片顯示瓦礫成堆的街道、部分倒塌的樓房、以及騰空的煙塵。新浪和其它網站很快便開始實時播送並開辟了專題網頁。

不過根據《中國數字時報》透露的一個宣傳指令,不出幾個小時,共產黨中宣部以及其它審查機關便采取了行動。指令限制記者進行現場報道,限制其他人進行獨立的新聞收集,禁止開設專題,並且必須刪除所有近距離照片。媒體和網站要按新華社等發稿為准。這樣的指令非常常見。自由之家2014對審查指令進行分析後發現,與公共安全、包括暴力攻擊的新聞報道在受審查最嚴重的內容中位居第三。

柳州的網警直接找到用戶,要求他們刪除新浪微博上有關爆炸的帖子。最早的帖子據說都被撤下;根據追蹤微博刪貼的“自由微博”,與柳州爆炸相關的關鍵詞成為微博上刪得最嚴重的內容。

官方媒體接下來聲稱, 33歲的石場工人韋銀勇是作案人,他已經在其中一次爆炸中身亡。報道說韋銀勇使用了包裹炸彈、遙控裝置和不知情的快遞員來投遞和引爆他的自制炸彈。根據當地警察的說法,韋銀勇的行為是“犯罪”行為,不是“恐怖主義”。警察說,他家擁有的石場遭到村民舉報,他對政府的處理方式不滿。

考慮到對這一事件的深度監控,一些互聯網用戶懷疑這不是全部的故事。另一些觀察者則注意到中國媒體和網站在對廣西爆炸進行低調報道的同時,卻對美國俄勒岡州10月1日發生的槍擊事件進行大肆渲染。


紙媒 / 新媒體: 政府近期的讓步掩蓋仍在進行的打壓

過去一個月對幾起涉及記者和網上活躍人士案件的處理顯示,中國當局在一些戰略時刻有時做一些松動,但這些舉動常常掩蓋了新的或者持續的信息管控和打壓異見的努力。

  • 習近平訪美前的意外讓步:在習近平訪美前不久,中國當局的兩個積極決定似乎向美國表達了好意。一是《紐約時報》記者儲百亮獲許在9月21日回到中國。在中國當局拒絕給他更新記者簽證後,他於2012年12月被迫離開中國。二是2012年幫助盲人活動人士陳光誠逃離法外軟禁、進入美國大使館的民間學者郭玉閃9月15日獲釋。郭玉閃是一個社會倡導型民間研究智庫的負責人,2015年1月被拘留,被當局指控非法印刷書籍。盡管郭玉閃已經取保獲釋,但這些指控仍未撤銷。國際大赦的William Nee告訴媒體說,釋放郭玉閃雖然是積極的,但“它也符合我們過去幾十年看到的一個模式,就是在國際重大訪問之前釋放一兩個異見分子。”
     
  • 商人博主被拘留:9月9日,海外中文媒體和國際媒體姍姍來遲地報道了博客作者、企業家信力建8月22日遭到拘留的消息。在中國南方經營最大的私營教育企業的信力建被指控故意銷毀會計憑證,但是他的支持者和朋友說,他因為向自由派學者和流亡記者提供資助而成為政府的打壓目標。他的逮捕符合自由之家在2015年的報告《政治局的難題》中指出的趨向,即中國正在加大對公民意識較強的民間企業家的打壓力度。
     
  • 對藝術家工作室的深度監控,首都街頭:著名藝術家和異見者艾未未自2011年被法外秘密關押80天後第一次出國,近日又返回中國。艾未未10月5日透露,他在裝修工作室的過程中發現了隱藏的監聽裝置。艾未未在推特和Instagram上貼了竊聽器照片,據信這些裝置已經被安裝了幾年。同一天,共產黨喉舌《人民日報》宣稱,北京警察的錄像監控系統實現了首都“全城覆蓋”,“沒有一個角落能夠逃脫‘天網’”,電子眼數量比去年增加29%。

香港: 自由派法律學者升職被阻,引發對學術自由的擔心

在香港最負盛名的高等學府香港大學,校委會9月29日以12票反對、8票贊成的結果否決了法律教授陳文敏的副校長任命。陳文敏是一個專家委員會選出的唯一符合資格的副校長人選,而這個職位在人事任命和預算決策上具有很大影響。對遴選委員會這一罕見的否決以及對投票不尋常的延遲,加上親北京媒體對陳文敏的經歷和人格進行的攻擊,使得人們擔憂這個決定是一個有政治動機的決定,會為學術自由帶來負面影響。

根據路透社報道,香港親北京媒體大約發表了300篇以上讒言陳文敏的文章,指控他是去年香港雨傘運動背後的一個主要人物。盡管陳文敏的一些同事、包括香港大學法律教授戴耀廷在雨傘運動中扮演了重要角色,陳文敏一直表示,他願意在中國人大提議的選舉框架內工作,而後者是雨傘運動堅決拒絕的。他具有這種溫和與和解的姿態居然還成為誣陷和懲罰的對像,這導致很多觀察者認為,對他的升職的拒絕是要警告學術界其他人,不要支持民主倡導者。

香港學生和學者以及香港外的學生和學者對陳文敏的遭遇表達了強烈反對。研究中國法律的著名學者、紐約大學教授孔傑榮稱學術委員會的投票是“一個醜聞”。 香港大學學生在投票當天舉行了燭光守夜,具有7,800 名成員的香港大學校友會表達了對陳文敏的支持。校委會投票後數日,10月5日,香港大學法律系表達了對陳文敏的支持,指出他的深厚資歷。之前泄露出來的校委會會議消息說,一些校委會成員為自己投否決票找理由,說陳文敏僅僅因為是個“親善的人”才獲得推舉。

另一方面,支持陳文敏的香港大學副校長馬斐森的電子郵件被黑客入侵,並且被親北京的媒體發布,人們另外擔心監控對學術自由的影響以及中央政府黑客與香港媒體之間可能進行的勾結。


中國之外: 聯合國恐嚇,泰國防火牆,緬甸抓捕

中國共產黨的信息管控和政治敏感常常在中國境外產生影響。以下是過去一個月報道的幾起反映這個現像的事件:

  • 中國的批評者在聯合國面臨恐嚇:10月6日,路透社發表了一份調查報道,指出中國外交人員以及至少34個政府控制的非政府組織如何在聯合國人權理事會上壓制對中國人權記錄的批評。他們的手法包括違反理事會規定,拍照前來作證的酷刑受害者;給聯合國施壓,不給予活動人士認證;打斷受害者的發言;用政府控制的非政府組織的人填充會場和討論會,蓋過對中國違反人權的指控發言。
     
  • 泰國軍政府嘗試類似中國那樣的互聯網防火牆:Telecom Asia 9月23日報道說,泰國網民發現了泰國軍事統治者的一道命令,要求將這個國家與外界的互聯網通訊中心化,像中國那樣實行更為嚴格的互聯網審查。報道說,這條內閣指令指示警察和政府部門“建立起一個單獨的互聯網門戶,以便控制不良網站,控制海外流入泰國的信息。”在自由之家互聯網自由索引中,泰國被列為“不自由”國家,因為泰國當局已經在封鎖大量網站,並迫害那些張貼批評內容的用戶。
     
  • 維權律師未成年的兒子在緬甸被綁架:被關押的維權律師王宇16歲的兒子包卓軒10月6日在緬甸和中國邊境不遠的一個賓館與同行的兩名活動人士被警察帶走。報道說他試圖逃離中國,前往美國。這是過去三個月以來包卓軒第二次被警察帶走。7月9日,他在北京首都機場被逮捕。盡管當局在兩天後釋放了他,但是他們卻扣押了他的護照。他的母親同一天被從家中帶走,緊接著中國政府對維權律師發起了沒有先例的大規模抓捕。王宇遭到了中央電視台以及其它國家媒體的污名化對待(見《中國媒體快報》第107號。截至10月12日,包卓軒據信被軟禁在家中。
     
  • PlayStation 4的銷售受到審查制度的影響:索尼電腦娛樂公司總裁Andrew House在九月份的東京游戲展上告訴記者說,該公司的PlayStation 4在中國的銷售不如預期。去年中國管制機構解除了對游戲機長達14年的禁令後,這個裝置今年三月份開始在中國銷售。但是電腦和手機游戲已經在市場上立足;寬泛和模糊的審查規則,加上上海政府文化部門審批過程緩慢也影響了這款游戲機的銷售。不過House重申了他的樂觀,他說中國市場“對游戲這種娛樂媒介具有巨大的潛力。”
     
  • 中國對日本演員的拒絕導致好萊塢電影延後七年:驚悚片《上海》10月2日在劇院上映,制片人Harvey Weinstein告訴《好萊塢報道》說,因為中國政府反對使用一名日本演員,這部影片的發行被推遲了七年。Weinstein說,在這部電影的劇本2008年被通過並且開始拍攝後,因為中日關系緊張,中國管制機構要求Weinstein把日本演員渡邊謙換成一個美國演員。制片人拒絕了這一要求,中國當局因此收回了原已發給制片廠在上海拍攝的許可。制片廠不得不更換拍攝地點、雙倍增加預算、額外募集基金,最終將制片時間表延遲到七年以後。

未來看點

美中網絡安全:看看是否有具體證據顯示中國政府直接或非直接支持的網絡經濟間諜有任何下降,美國官員在今年晚些時候的雙邊對話中是否會提出出於政治動機、針對美國目標的網絡攻擊問題。

北京全覆蓋錄像監控:注意來自活躍人士、法輪功學員或訪民的消息,看看他們在公共場所非正式聚會、散發傳單、或從事草根人權活動時是否會被更加容易地認定和拘押。

萬達購買英國連鎖影院: 最近有報道說,中國億萬富翁王健林的大連萬達在考慮購買英國奧迪恩連鎖影院。這個交易,與萬達之前在美國和澳大利亞購買的影院一道,將會使萬達公司對中國境外數以千計的電影院具有控制權。注意這個購買交易是否會被證實。在今後的一些年裡,看看這一控制權是否會對電影制作和放映產生影響 – 是否不再有批評中國的電影,或者在電影中出現親北京的傾向。


China Media Bulletin Issue No. 109: October 2015

$
0
0
guangxi blast photo censored

 

HEADLINES OCTOBER 2015


FEATURE: Obama-Xi Agreement Will Not Resolve China Cybersecurity Threat 

By Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst for East Asia and China Media Bulletin Director 

One of the most touted takeaways from Chinese president Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States last month was an agreement by the two leaders on the contentious issue of cyberattacks—and especially cyberespionage—against American targets. Particular attention has been given to a commitment Xi and U.S. president Barack Obama made to avoid engaging in or knowingly supporting acts of cybertheft for economic gain.

But while the commitment signals bilateral goodwill, there are a number of reasons to doubt its effectiveness in curbing commercial espionage and the broader problem of intrusive, destructive cyberattacks against a range of U.S. targets by entities tied to the Chinese government:

Absence of clear standards or verification mechanisms: Security experts analyzing the agreement noted its vague wording and lack of definitions for what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable activity, meaning further negotiation would be required to render the agreement effective. Similarly, no objective metrics were identified for determining whether one side or the other has followed through on its commitments. These challenges, along with the near impossibility of tracing who is responsible for most cyberattacks, will make enforcement difficult.

Omission of politically motivated attacks: More problematic from the perspective of privacy and freedom of expression was the cybertheft agreement’s focus on the economic realm. By framing the pact in this way, Obama and Xi ignored the increasingly aggressive, sophisticated, and widespread cyberattacks apparently committed by Chinese state actors against American media companies, human rights groups, individual activists, and government bodies. Thus, even if an agreement like this one had been in place for the past five years, it arguably would not have prevented attacks on Google in 2010 (which hacked rights defenders’ accounts, among other targets), media outlets like the New York Times in 2012 (seeking information on the sources for the paper’s investigation of former premier Wen Jiabao’s family wealth), or a massive denial-of-service attack against the code-sharing platform GitHub in March of this year. Nor would it have helped stem routine phishing attacks that target overseas Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur activists and, increasingly, U.S. government personnel. 

Failure to address vulnerabilities created by China’s Great Firewall: More indirectly, any agreement that depoliticizes the Chinese government’s internet policies is overlooking the general security problems created by the Great Firewall (GFW)—Beijng’s system for monitoring and filtering internet communications between China and the outside world.

Over the past month, this issue was highlighted by two incidents in which malware infected applications on Apple’s mobile operating system. On September 17, some of China’s most popular apps—including Tencent’s WeChat and NetEase—were found to be carrying malware, affecting hundreds of millions of smartphones and marking the largest such incident to date in Apple’s history.

The apps were susceptible to intrusions because they used an alternative to Apple’s standard XCode. Analyzing why app developers might have used a less secure code, Oiwan Lam of Global Voices points out that due to the slow international internet connections in China (a direct result of the GFW’s real-time filtering), downloading XCode takes a very long time. Some programmers have consequently turned to alternatives that are more accessible from within the firewall, but also more vulnerable to malware. 

In the second incident, a malicious program targeting Apple devices was reported on October 4 by researchers at Palo Alto Networks. This time, a Chinese marketing company took advantage of internet users’ desire to circumvent censorship to convince them to download an infected application. The malware essentially allowed the marketers to take control of users’ phones and execute certain actions, such as opening their Safari web browser to a page showing clients’ products or advertisements. 

Both of the above incidents were resolved quickly without long-term harm to consumers, but future attacks that exploit the same incentives may not prove as innocuous. Moreover, security analysts have found that the March 2015 attack on GitHub was carried out with a tool they labeled the “Great Cannon.” This weapon, which is co-located with the GFW, worked by redirecting large volumes of bystander traffic—mostly from Hong Kong and Taiwan—that was headed for search engine Baidu’s China servers and using it to swamp and paralyze the U.S.-based code-sharing website.

Ultimately, actions will speak louder than words. Over the next six months, security experts will closely track and investigate reports of cyber intrusions from China against American companies and other targets, hopefully providing evidence on whether the pace of attacks has slowed, if not ceased.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration will have two avenues—a bilateral dialogue and an ongoing response system—through which to press the Chinese government for answers and prosecutions of those found responsible for violations. The United States will also continue to consider imposing sanctions on Chinese companies found to have benefited from cyberespionage. The threat of sanctions appears to have had at least a short-term impact: On October 12, the Washington Post reported that Chinese officials had for the first time arrested hackers identified by U.S. officials.

A White House fact sheet states that these new communication channels could address “malicious cyberactivities” generally. This leaves space for U.S. officials to expand the scope of inquiries beyond commercial espionage. American and Chinese internet users, civil society, and media outlets would be well served if politically driven attacks were covered, beginning with the first bilateral dialogue expected before the end of this calendar year.

In the meantime, though, security experts who have analyzed the Obama-Xi agreement appear to agree that they will not be out of work anytime soon. On September 29, security firm KnowBe4 offered a stark warning to those seeking protection from detrimental cyber intrusions originating in China: “You are still mostly on your own.” 


PRINT / BROADCAST: During Xi’s U.S. visit, state media boost leader’s image, downplay bilateral tensions

The Chinese state media produced voluminous but selective coverage of President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States from September 22 to 28, aiming to bolster Xi’s image. The reporting portrayed him as a statesman who was welcomed on the international stage and represented a China that was on par with the United States as a global power. Censors, journalists, and propaganda authorities went to great lengths to provide an overwhelmingly positive spin on the visit, which U.S. media presented as fraught with bilateral tensions and overshadowed by Pope Francis’s simultaneous visit and the sudden resignation of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

Chinese state media coverage closely followed the honors offered to Xi at different points on his itinerary, from a children’s choir serenade in Washington to a 21-gun salute at the White House. The nationalistic Global Times noted that his addresses were met with “waves of applause.” Online news sites touted President Barack Obama’s “Ni Hao” welcome. Primetime news bulletins highlighted Xi’s menu and his wife’s attire, alongside enthusiastic welcomes for the couple. Unsurprisingly, the reporting omitted the street protests by democracy activists, Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, and Tibetans over human rights abuses that also greeted Xi. Coverage frequently referred to Beijing’s concept of “a new type of great power relations” to demonstrate parity between the United States and China, without acknowledging that Washington has yet to embrace the idea, given its implied subordination of smaller countries’ interests, among other concerns.

Online, the hashtag #FollowUncleXitotheUS was the highest-trending topic for a week on the Sina Weibo microblogging platform, and related posts reportedly gained over 500 million views. Nevertheless, online chatter was heavily monitored, and critical remarks were censored. The Cyberspace Administration of China helped guide the tone of online public opinion with a September 22 directive instructing the mobile applications of Chinese news organizations to limit notifications of “negative news” about events in China to only three during the period of Xi’s U.S. visit, lest they distract from the positive impact of the trip. Those violating the order risked having their notification function disabled for 10 days.

A detailed analysis by Merridan Varral at the Lowy Institute notes that Xi’s visit “provided an ideal opportunity to reinforce his domestic legitimacy” after his reputation took a hit this summer from the fatal chemical explosions in Tianjin, a plunge in the stock market, and a slowing economy. For international audiences, the Chinese state media’s efforts to set an overwhelmingly positive tone were less successful. On Twitter, which is blocked in China, Chinese human rights attorney Gao Zhisheng’s new revelations about his torture in custody trended above the #XiJinping hashtag on September 23. And a People’s Dailyvideo of foreigners praising the Chinese leader “Xi Dada” as “cute” and like a “big brother” met with more ridicule than awe.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA: Censors swiftly restrict news and internet posts of deadly blasts in Guangxi

On September 30 and October 1, a series of 17 explosions in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, killed at least 10 people and injured some 50 others. The blasts struck government offices, a shopping mall, a hospital, and residential areas, and coincided with the beginning of Golden Week, a national holiday and politically sensitive period surrounding the October 1 anniversary of the Communist Party’s rise to power in 1949. An initial series of photographs that circulated online showed rubble-covered streets, partially collapsed buildings, and palls of smoke and dust. Sina and other popular web portals soon launched live feeds and special online feature pages.

Within hours, however, the party’s Central Propaganda Department and other censorship bodies moved into action, according to leaked directives published by China Digital Times. The instructions restricted journalists’ on-site reporting, limited other independent newsgathering, banned special topic features, and ordered the deletion of close-range photos. News outlets and online platforms were instructed to take their cues from reports by the official Xinhua News Agency. Such instructions are not unusual. A 2014 Freedom House analysis of censorship directives found that news related to public safety, including violent attacks, was the third most commonly censored topic.

Internet police in Liuzhou directly contacted users, asking them to delete Sina Weibo microblog posts about the bombings. Early web features were reportedly taken down, and terms related to Liuzhou became some of the most censored on Weibo, according to Free Weibo, a site that tracks microblog deletions.

Subsequent state media reports asserted that a 33-year-old quarry owner named Wei Yinyong was responsible for the blasts, and that he had been killed in one of the explosions. Wei reportedly used parcel services, remote-control devices, and a series of unaware carriers to deliver and detonate his homemade bombs. According to local police, Wei’s acts were “criminal” rather than “terrorism,” motivated in part by his frustration with the government’s response to villager complaints about work at the family-owned quarry.

Some internet users expressed skepticism that this was the full story, given the substantial censorship. Other observers contrasted the muted coverage of the blasts in Guangxi with Chinese media’s high-profile reporting and special web features on an October 1 mass shooting at a college in the U.S. state of Oregon.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA: Recent government concessions mask ongoing repression

The past month’s developments in cases involving prominent journalists and online activists indicate that while the Chinese authorities sometimes ease restrictions at strategic moments, the moves often conceal new or continued efforts to maintain control over information and dissent.

  • Unexpected concessions ahead of Xi’s U.S. visit: In the days leading up to President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States, two positive decisions by officials appeared to signal goodwill toward Washington. Chris Buckley, a New York Times correspondent, received permission to return to China on September 21. He had been forced to leave the country in December 2012 after authorities refused to renew his press accreditation. Separately, on September 15, Guo Yushan, a scholar who had helped blind activist Chen Guangcheng escape his extralegal house arrest and reach the U.S. embassy in 2012, was released from custody. Guo, who led a research and social advocacy organization, had been detained in January 2015 and accused of illegally printing books; the charges remain in place despite his release on bail. Amnesty International’s William Nee told media that Guo’s release, while positive, “just fits into the usual pattern that we’ve seen over the decades of a token release of one dissident or two ahead of a major ceremonial occasion at the international level.”
     
  • Businessman blogger detained: On September 9, news belatedly emerged in overseas Chinese and international media of the August 22 detention of microblogger and entrepreneur Xin Lijian. Xin, who runs the largest private education business in southern China, was accused of accounting irregularities, but his supporters and friends said he was being targeted for providing financial support to liberal scholars and exile journalists. His arrest fits a trend noted in Freedom House’s 2015 report The Politburo’s Predicament of increased repression against civic-minded businessmen.
     
  • Pervasive surveillance of artist’s studio, streets of capital: After returning to China from his first trip abroad since his 80-day extralegal detention in 2011, Ai Weiwei reported on October 5 that he had discovered hidden surveillance equipment in his studio during renovations. The well-known artist and dissident posted photos on Twitter and Instagram showing the equipment, which is believed to have been in place for several years. The same day, Communist Party mouthpiece the People’s Daily declared that “Beijing Police have covered every corner of the capital with a video surveillance system,” after a 29 percent increase in the number of cameras in the city over the past year.


Map of Beijing showing the locations of video surveillance cameras throughout the city. Credit: People's Daily.


HONG KONG: Liberal legal scholar’s blocked promotion raises fears for academic freedom

On September 29, the governing council of Hong Kong University, one of the territory’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, voted 12 to 8 to reject the appointment of law professor Johannes Chan to the position of pro-vice-chancellor. Chan had been selected by an expert committee and put forth as the only qualified candidate suitable for the position, which has significant influence over staffing and budgeting decisions. The rare overturning of a selection committee’s nomination and the unusual delay in holding the vote, combined with an assault on Chan’s experience and character in pro-Beijing media, have fueled concerns that the decision was politically motivated and could have a negative impact on academic freedom.

According to Reuters, over 300 articles published in pro-Beijing Hong Kong media outlets spoke ill of Chan and alleged that he was a key force behind last year’s Occupy Central prodemocracy demonstrations. Although Chan’s colleagues—including HKU law professor Benny Tai—played prominent roles in the movement, Chan has said he was open to working within the electoral framework proposed by Beijing’s National People’s Congress, which the Occupy Central movement firmly rejected. That Chan would become a target for defamation and punishment despite his more moderate, conciliatory stance has led observers to interpret the rejection of his promotion as a signal to others in academia to refrain from supporting democracy advocates.

Hong Kong students and scholars, as well as their international counterparts, have voiced strong objections to Chan’s treatment. Jerome Cohen, a prominent Chinese legal expert at New York University, called the council vote “a scandal.” HKU students held a candlelight vigil on the evening of the vote, and 7,800 members of the HKU alumni association expressed their support for Chan. On October 5, several days after the council’s decision, HKU’s own law department spoke up in the professor’s defense, insisting on his strong qualifications after leaks from the council meeting indicated that some members justified their vote against him by saying he had advanced simply because he was a “nice guy.”

Meanwhile, the fact that the e-mails of HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson, who supported Chan’s candidacy, were hacked and published by pro-Beijing media outlets raised a host of other concerns about the threat to academic freedom presented by surveillance and possible collusion between central government hackers and Hong Kong media.


BEYOND CHINA:  UN intimidation, Thailand firewall, Myanmar arrest

The Chinese Communist Party’s information controls and political sensitivities often have an impact far beyond China’s borders. The following are a few incidents reported over the past month that illustrate this phenomenon:

  • China critics at United Nations face intimidation: On October 6, Reuters published an investigation of the various tactics employed by Chinese diplomats and at least 34 GONGOs (government-organized nongovernmental organizations) at the UN Human Rights Council to stifle criticism of China’s human rights record. These tactics include photographing torture victims who come to testify, in violation of the council’s rules; pressuring the United Nations to deny accreditation to high-profile activists; interrupting victims’ testimonies; and filling meeting halls and discussion sessions with GONGOs to drown out accusations of rights abuses.
     
  • Thailand junta exploring China-like internet firewall: On September 23, Telecom Asia reported that a Thai netizen had discovered an edict by Thailand’s military rulers to centralize the flow of internet traffic in and out of the country, facilitating a more robust form of internet censorship, similar to China’s. The cabinet directive instructs the police and government ministries to “set up a single internet gateway in order to control inappropriate websites and to control the flow of information into the country from overseas via the internet,” according to the article. Thailand is rated Not Free in Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net index, as authorities already block large numbers of websites and prosecute users for posting critical content.
     
  • Rights lawyer’s teenage son abducted in Myanmar: On October 6, Bao Zhuoxuan, the 16-year-old son of detained Chinese human rights lawyer Wang Yu, was taken away by police while staying with two other activists at a guesthouse in Myanmar near the border with China. He was reportedly attempting to flee China and reach the United States. This was the second time in three months that Bao had been taken into custody. On July 9, he was arrested at Beijing airport; though he was released two days later, authorities kept his passport. His mother’s arrest elsewhere that same day set off one of the worst crackdowns on Chinese human rights attorneys in recent memory, and she has also been the subject of vilifying state-run media coverage (see CMB No. 107). As of October 12, Bao was believed to be under house arrest in China.
     
  • PlayStation 4 sales hurt by censorship regime: Andrew House, the chief executive of Sony Computer Entertainment, told reporters at the Tokyo Game Show in September that sales of the company’s PlayStation 4 in China have not been as strong as expected. The device was launched in the country in March after Chinese regulators lifted a 14-year ban on gaming consoles last year. However, competing options like computer- and mobile-based games had already built up a strong presence in the market during the ban, and broad, vague censorship rules—combined with a slow approval process by the Shanghai government’s culture department—may have also hurt PlayStation sales. Nevertheless, House reiterated his optimism about China’s “tremendous potential for gaming as an entertainment medium.”
     
  • China’s objection to Japanese actor delayed Hollywood film for seven years: As the thriller Shanghai was preparing to open in theaters October 2, producer Harvey Weinstein told the Hollywood Reporter that its release had been delayed by seven years due to Chinese government opposition to the use of a Japanese actor. Weinstein said that in 2008, after the movie’s script had already been approved and filming begun, regulators asked Weinstein to remove Japanese actor Ken Watanabe and recast an American in his role due to Chinese-Japanese tensions. The producer refused, and the authorities revoked the film’s previously issued permit to shoot in Shanghai. The studio then had to change filming venues, double the budget, raise additional funding, and ultimately extend the production timeline by several years.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

U.S.-China cybersecurity: Watch for concrete evidence indicating any reduction in the Chinese government’s direct or indirect support of cyberespionage for economic purposes, and whether U.S. officials raise politically motivated cyberattacks against U.S. targets as part of a bilateral dialogue session later this year.

Blanket Beijing video surveillance: Watch for new reports of activists, Falun Gong practitioners, or petitioners being identified and detained more easily for meeting informally in public places, handing out leaflets, or otherwise engaging in grassroots human rights awareness activities.

Wanda purchase of British cinema chain: Watch for confirmation of a recent report that Dalian Wanda, a conglomerate owned by Chinese billionaire Wang Jianli, is looking to purchase Britain’s Odeon cinema chain. Such a deal, alongside Wanda’s previous acquisitions of large theater chains in the United States and Australia, would give the company control over thousands of cinemas outside China. In the years ahead, watch for any effects on the types of films being shown and produced—either an absence of movies that are critical of China or the presence of films with a pro-Beijing slant.

 

China Media Bulletin Issue No.110: December 2015

$
0
0
hong kong china protest

HEADLINES - DECEMBER 2015


 

FEATURE  Resisting Beijing’s Global Media Influence

By Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst for East Asia and China Media Bulletin Director 

A Chinese Canadian woman is barred from attending the Miss World contest in China because of her human rights advocacy and spiritual beliefs, with no protest from pageant organizers. A political cartoonist fleeing persecution is deported back to China by Thai authorities, who ignored his UN refugee status. And a Reuters investigation finds that 33 radio stations in 14 countries are subtly broadcasting Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda.

Cartoon depicting Chinese artist Ai Weiwei as a Lego figurine after the company refused to fill a bulk order for his next art installation. Photo Credit:Rebel Pepper.

These incidents from November alone exemplify an ongoing Chinese government campaign to promote its views and suppress criticism around the world.

The phenomenon is not new. A 2013 study by the Center for International Media Assistance described Beijing’s palpable influence over news outlets in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Africa. However, as Chinese president Xi Jinping has tightened ideological controls at home, related content restrictions and manipulation are affecting an ever-broadening array of institutions and economic sectors overseas.

Since November 2012, when Xi took the helm of the CCP, Freedom House’s China Media Bulletin has noted over 40 instances—in 17 countries and international institutions—of Chinese information controls negatively affecting free expression outside China. These are likely only the tip of the iceberg. The CCP’s interventions and influences extend to a surprising range of media, including pop music, hot air balloons, and video games.

Disturbingly, as Beijing has pushed harder with economic incentives, intimidation tactics, and even cultural arguments to support its demands, the response from foreign entities has been rather weak, with examples of passivity or complicity proliferating.

In 2014, at the behest of a Chinese printer, Reader’s Digest removed a fictional story from an anthology for the international market due to its references to religious persecution and torture in China. This July, leaked e-mails from Sony Pictures executives revealed recommendations to preemptively remove scenes from the movie Pixels—the same version that was screened globally—for fear of upsetting Chinese censors.

Last month, prominent artist and dissident Ai Weiwei reported that the Lego company had refused to fill a special bulk order he requested for a planned artwork on free speech because it would amount to “actively engaging” in a project with a “political agenda,” a violation of company policy.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government has continued investing in propaganda and exploring new ways of insinuating CCP influence into foreign-language media content. Over the past month, news emerged that Chinese companies will increase financing for English-language feature films, and media representatives from Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa discussed a joint “information network” at the first BRICS Media Summit in Beijing.

The result of these dynamics is that more and more people around the world are encountering the kinds of difficult ethical and practical choices that many Chinese face daily. Meanwhile, liberal Chinese, victims of persecution, and civic leaders risk being marginalized and occasionally even barred from fleeing to freedom.

Given the CCP’s track record, it is difficult to excuse foreign organizations that are or claim to be caught off guard by political or economic pressure from Beijing. Indeed, there are many around the world who have found the resolve and ingenuity to push back, reaffirm democratic values, and resist enticing incentives, even if it comes at a cost.

Anastasia Lin, the Canadian pageant contestant mentioned above, has refused to remain silent about her activism on behalf of Falun Gong and other human rights causes, despite harassment of her father in China and the lost opportunity to compete for the Miss World crown. Tsai Ing-wen, the opposition candidate in Taiwan’s upcoming presidential election, responded to thousands of critical posts sent by mainland Chinese users—possibly with the blessing of Chinese authorities—on her Facebook page with a principled message, welcoming them to the usually blocked social-networking site and inviting them to experience Taiwan’s democracy. In Ai Weiwei’s case, so many people expressed support for his project and disappointment at Lego’s response that he set up collection points in three countries for individuals to donate blocks to his art installation.

As institutions, at least three universities in the United States and Canada have chosen since 2013 to discontinue their Beijing-sponsored Confucius Institutes after negative experiences involving discriminatory hiring practices, Chinese state media coverage, and restrictions on academic freedom.

Other entities have responded more systematically. In June 2014, the American Association of University Professors urged U.S. universities to cancel their agreements with Confucius Institutes unless they gain greater control over curriculum and hiring. In October 2015, twelve major U.S. publishers signed a pledge by the PEN American Center to monitor and address censorship in Chinese translations of books by foreign authors, affirming an industry standard that favors transparency and free expression.

As a new year approaches, there are many uncertainties regarding China’s future relationship with the world. But one thing is clear. Despite the Chinese government’s rhetoric of not interfering in other countries’ affairs, CCP censorship and propaganda are now a global phenomenon.

It is therefore up to members of the international community—individuals, institutions, governments, and corporations—to decide whether to accept this trend or work together to reverse it.

This article also appeared in The Diplomat on December 9 2015.


PRINT / BROADCAST  New ‘ethics committees’ institutionalize party-state media controls

On November 5, the official Xinhua news agency announced the creation of a new committee to monitor implementation of a self-discipline pledge signed in September by at least 50 media organizations. The committee, to be established under the rubric of the China Alliance of Radio, Film, and Television (CARFT), will be tasked with meting out warnings, demotions, dismissals, orders for public apologies, or even blacklisting for media organizations in response to violations of the pledge. The formation of the national committee fits a broader pattern in which provincial and city-level news ethics committees have emerged across the country since mid-2013. The panels include officials from various government agencies and are led by local party propaganda offices. The most recently announced subnational committee formed in Anhui Province on November 30. In most cases, the surface justification is to counter the growing problems of vulgar content, fake news, and paid-for news. But as David Bandurski of Hong Kong University’s China Media Project notes, a close examination of official wording reveals the overarching aim of reinforcing journalists’ political obedience. For example, Clause 1 of the September self-discipline pledge states that the signatories commit to “preserving the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party” and “not publishing or spreading any language that damages the image of the Party.”

Under President Xi Jinping’s leadership, regulators and the party’s propaganda department have methodically sought to reinvigorate the party’s dominance over public discourse, online and offline. For instance, Xinhua announced on November 6 that online news reporters were granted press cards for the first time, allowing them to conduct interviews and report news directly, rather than simply republishing reports by traditional news media. Although 594 reporters received accreditation, all were from party or government-run websites, while staff from more popular commercial portals like Sina and Sohu were excluded. Such discriminatory treatment, combined with limits on the syndication opportunities for commercial media, match the findings of a 2014 Freedom House study of news outlets’ microblog feeds, which showed a dramatic shift in influence on Sina Weibo from commercial to government-controlled outlets after Xi took over as head of the CCP in late 2012.


PRINT / BROADCAST  State media, censors promote and protect Xi Jinping’s image

Daily reports about the activities of top leaders have long been a signature feature of Chinese state-run media and particularly Communist Party mouthpieces. But under President Xi Jinping’s rule, this phenomenon has reached new heights, as personalized coverage of “Xi Dada” far exceeds that of his predecessors or fellow Politburo Standing Committee members. On December 4, the front page of the Communist Party’s flagship publication, the People’s Daily, included mentions of Xi in no less than 11 of 12 headlines. Page 2 was nearly filled with an array of photos showing Xi meeting with various African leaders. Premier Li Keqiang did not receive mention until page 4. According to a 2014 study of leaders’ mentions on the front page of the People’s Daily by China Media Project director Qian Gang, references to Xi exceeded even those of Deng Xiaoping, and were more than twice as numerous as those of Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin during the relevant time periods. State media coverage has been supplemented with a book of Xi’s sayings, a smartphone app, and an interactive QR code quiz. Overwhelmingly positive coverage of Xi has also seeped into commercial papers, including the Southern Weekly, previously known for its more critical investigative coverage. Its December 3 edition included a 13,000-word, front-page feature praising reform under Xi’s leadership.

Photo: Chinese President Xi Jinping and British Prime Minister David Cameron posed for a selfie photo with Manchester City's Argentine soccer star Sergio Aguero. The selfie received 18,761 shares on Sina Weibo’s microblogging platform before deletion. A separate post with this and other images from Xi’s UK visit received 61,759 shares before deletion. Credit: Weiboscope.

Meanwhile, censors have worked equally hard to delete and discourage unofficial photos or comments that even indirectly portray Xi in a negative light. On November 13, Zhang Aijia, a teacher at the Hong’an International Education School, was fired after posting a comment on WeChat arguing that truly knowledgeable people do not boast about the books they have read. Although the post made no reference to Xi, Zhang’s superiors were pressured by police and the local education bureau to dismiss her because her comment was interpreted as mocking the president’s tendency to display his knowledge of Chinese and international literary works during visits abroad. In a more direct violation of discipline, on December 6 the South China Morning Post reported that four staff from the official China News Service newswire were suspended after they published an article with a typographical error that accidentally referred to Xi’s speech at the China-Africa summit in South Africa as his resignation. Separately, the official Xinhua news agency posted a copy of an impromptu selfie of Xi, British prime minister David Cameron, and Argentine soccer star Sergio Aguero, but the image nevertheless became one of the most rapidly censored images on Sina Weibo’s microblogging platform in October/November, according to Weiboscope, a research project at Hong Kong University that tracks Weibo deletions in real time.


NEW MEDIA Ban on ‘improper discussion’ by party members prompts reprisals, netizen humor

On October 21, the CCP Central Committee issued a new set of disciplinary regulations for the party’s 88 million members. Amid a long list of requirements related to political discipline, organizational discipline, relations with citizens, and personal integrity, one article in particular sparked controversy. Article 46 prohibits “improper discussion [of the policies] of the central Party” (wangyi zhongyang). Wendy Zhou notes in her analysis of the term “improper discussion” as used in the CCP mouthpiece People’s Daily that it has rarely appeared in the context of an internal party ban in the past four decades, but it has gained prominence over the past year. This has prompted comparisons of the new rule to internal party purges and political campaigns of the Mao era, and the censorship of any such allusions. One Weibo post, deleted within 50 minutes, featured an image of a newspaper headline announcing the regulations, coupled with the statement, “The wind of the Cultural Revolution is quietly rising; the voice of one man clearly rules.” Others raised similar concerns, including prominent law professor He Weifang.

Since the announcement of the disciplinary rules, two cases have been reported in which individuals were fired for public comments—including online—that were deemed critical of the party. On November 2, a state-run paper in Xinjiang reported that one of its editors, Zhao Xinwei, had been fired for making public comments opposing central government policy in the region. On November 11, Guangdong Province’s party disciplinary committee reported that Liang Xinsheng had been removed from his post as deputy head of a university English department for publishing “radical opinions” on his Weibo account. The new rules and punishments, alongside recent campaigns to identify and punish cadres in Xinjiang and Tibet for holding even private religious or political beliefs, underscore the increasing use of the party’s Committee for Discipline Inspection to root out internal dissent, not just corruption.

The new rules have also drawn mockery from netizens. One noted that a post about the next Spring Festival was deleted even though it didn’t “improperly discuss” the central government, while others asked whether the UN Committee against Torture should be punished for “improperly discussing” central party policies.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA  Jailed journalist released, others punished for political speech

Recent developments in cases involving journalists and free expression activists indicate that occasional releases after domestic and international pressure do not signify a broader easing of repression.

  • Veteran journalist to serve prison sentence at home: On November 26, the Beijing high court reduced the sentence of journalist Gao Yu by two years, then ordered her released from custody, permitting her to serve the remainder of her sentence at home or in hospital care. Gao, 71, was sentenced to seven years in prison in April for allegedly providing an internal party memo to an overseas news site, a charge she denies. She has been repeatedly denied medical parole, but domestic and international calls for her release on humanitarian grounds may have pressured the Chinese authorities to show lenience.
  • Activist jailed for joining press freedom protest: On November 27, a court in Guangzhou sentenced prominent rights activist Yang Maodong, also known by the pen name Guo Feixiong, to six years in prison. Fellow activists Sun Desheng and Liu Yandong were sentenced to two and a half and three years, respectively. The three were punished for their participation in a 2013 protest outside the offices of the Southern Weekly newspaper calling for greater press freedom. The case was riddled with due process violations, including the judge’s unexpected, last-minute announcement at the sentencing hearing that Guo was guilty of a new charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” In a statement about the verdict circulated online, Guo expressed determination and optimism about a democratic future for China. He previously served a five-year sentence for his activism, from 2004 to 2009.
  • Lawyer incommunicado after criticizing friend’s jailing online: On December 2, Radio Free Asia reported that prominent attorney Gao Zhisheng had lost communication with the outside world. Shortly before he went silent, Gao authored a letter firmly criticizing the jailing of Guo Feixiong (see above) and calling for a future special tribunal to prosecute CCP officials responsible for human rights violations. As the letter circulated on social media, Gao was placed under house arrest at his late mother’s traditional cave dwelling in rural Shaanxi Province. Prior to Gao’s own stints of extralegal detention and then imprisonment from 2006 to 2014, he and Guo had worked together on several rights-defense cases.
  • Hong Kong journalists, book publishers face mainland reprisals: On November 5, two journalists appeared in court in Shenzhen to plead guilty on charges of operating an “illegal business.” Publisher Wang Jiamin and editor Guo Zhongxiao were involved in producing two magazines in Hong Kong that often touched on sensitive political dynamics among the Chinese elite. Although the amount earned from the small number of copies sold in China was insufficient to meet the legal minimum for the “illegal business” charge, the judge accepted the inclusion of the profits from Hong Kong, where the publications are permitted, to justify the charge. The pair were detained in May 2014; their sentences have yet to be announced. Separately, in late October, four people involved with a Hong Kong–based book publisher known for printing salacious accounts of Chinese leaders’ personal lives disappeared in Thailand and China and were believed to be in the custody of Chinese authorities. No further information was available on their status as of early December.

 


HONG KONG / BEYOND CHINA  Media acquisitions and cyberattacks

The Chinese Communist Party’s indirect influence over media outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan has grown in recent years, and two possible acquisitions could add to the problem. Meanwhile, China-based hacking attacks continue, but there are signs that some forms of deterrence can be effective.

  • Purchase of ‘South China Morning Post by mainland billionaire? In recent weeks, several media outlets reported plans by Chinese businessman Jack Ma, or his e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba, to purchase a stake in Hong Kong’s prominent English-language newspaper the South China Morning Post. Robin Hu, chief executive of the South China Media Group, which owns the paper, fueled the speculation with a November 25 statement confirming that the paper was in talks with an unnamed buyer. Should the purchase go through, it would be the first instance of a Chinese internet company buying a newspaper outside mainland China, though Alibaba and Ma personally have both already acquired a variety of media assets in China and Hong Kong. The potential purchase, following the replacement of the chief editor and resignations by key staff in recent months, has added to concerns that the paper’s editorial independence from Beijing could suffer.
  • U.S. film producer with China ties bids for Taiwan TV network: On November 21, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dan Mintz, an American film producer often referred to as “Mr. China” in Hollywood circles, had reached a deal with the U.S. firm Carlyle Group to personally purchase a 61 percent controlling stake in Taiwan’s Eastern Broadcasting Company television network. The network owns 20 channels in Taiwan and subsidiaries abroad, making it the largest private Mandarin-language network in the world. Mintz is the chief executive of the U.S. arm of Chinese television and film company DMG Entertainment. He played a key role in the U.S.-China coproduction of Iron Man 3, whose Chinese version featured changes meant to appease authorities and appeal to Chinese audiences. If concluded, the television deal would require approval by Taiwanese government regulators, who have said they will closely scrutinize it given Mintz’s China ties.
  • China suspected in hack of Australian weather bureau: On December 2, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that computers at the country’s Bureau of Meteorology had been hacked, with official sources saying they had little doubt that the “massive” breach originated in China. The bureau owns a supercomputer and other resources that link into, among other agencies, the Department of Defense, making it a high-value intelligence target. Australian officials have not publicly accused the Chinese government of being behind the breach, and a Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman denied Beijing’s involvement.
  • Some Chinese cyberespionage declines after U.S. indictments: On November 30, on the eve of a new round of U.S.-China cybersecurity talks, the Washington Post cited current and former U.S. officials stating that commercial cyberespionage by the Chinese military had dropped since the U.S. Justice Department indicted five Chinese officers in May 2014. Officials and private-sector analysts report that cyberespionage intrusions have continued overall, with responsibility shifting to civilian intelligence agencies like the Ministry of State Security. Nevertheless, the change seemed to indicate that the firm, law enforcement–based approach effectively changed Chinese behavior.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Increased censorship, activist trials during holidays: The Chinese authorities have an uncanny tendency to intensify censorship and prosecute prominent activists during the Christmas/New Year holiday season, possibly to minimize international media attention and any political or diplomatic backlash. Guo Feixiong’s recent sentencing on the day after Thanksgiving may not bode well for the coming month. Watch for new upgrades to the Great Firewall and the trial or sentencing of prominent lawyers, especially Pu Zhiqiang (in custody for 20 months without trial) and attorneys detained during the July 2015 crackdown.

More punishments, pushback over ‘improper discussion’ rule: Watch for more cases of Communist Party cadres being punished for “improperly discussing” central policies, but also signs of growing internal discontent and resentment as party insiders critical of Xi Jinping’s leadership are silenced.

New censorship circumvention tactic: In late November, technology news sites reported on a new browser plug-in that could enable users in China to access blocked websites. Developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the so-called CacheBrowser tool takes advantage of the fact that censors have difficulty blocking specific information in a content delivery network (CDN); blocking a whole network would cause considerable collateral damage. Watch for the tool’s end-user version to be available soon (only a prototype is ready now, available here), reports of its use by Chinese netizens, and efforts by government censors to block more cloud services or CDNs in response, despite the collateral damage.

中国媒体快报 第110号,2015年12月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0
hong kong china protest

主要新闻


特写

抵抗中国对国际媒体的影响

莎拉库克,自由之家资深东亚研究分析员,《中国媒体快报》负责人

一位华裔加拿大女士因为其人权倡导活动和信仰而被禁止进入中国参加世界小姐选美比赛,比赛组织者竟然没有对此作出任何抗议。泰国当局无视一位逃离迫害的中国政治漫画家的联合国难民身份,将其遣返回中国。路透社的一个调查发现,14个国家的33个电台在不引人注意地广播中国共产党的宣传。

说明:这幅漫画把中国艺术家艾未未描绘成一个被禁的乐高人物。之前乐高公司拒绝接受艾未未为他的下一个艺术品而做的大宗订单。来源:变态辣椒

仅仅是这几件11月份发生或披露的例子就可以展示中国政府如何在世界范围内倡导它的观点,压制对中国的批评。

这并不是一个新现象。国际媒体协助中心2013年的一份研究翔实有据地描述了中国如何对美国丶欧洲丶亚洲和非洲的一些媒体施加影响。不过,随着习近平在国内钳紧意识形态控制,相关的内容限制和操纵正在海外波及更多的机构和经济领域。

自从习近平2012年11月成为中共领导人以来,自由之家《中国媒体快报》已经记录了发生在17个国家和国际机构40多个这样的例子,显示中国的信息控制负面地影响到中国境外的言论自由。这些例子很可能只是冰山一角。中共的干预和影响延伸到了令人惊讶的媒体领域,包括流行音乐丶热气球活动丶以及录像游戏。

北京一直在使用经济刺激丶恐吓手法丶甚至文化论辩来推动它的要求,但是令人不安的是,外国机构的反应相当贫弱,在很多情况下陷於被动或同谋。

2014年,《读者文摘》按照中国的要求从它为国际市场编辑的一本短篇小说集中除去了一篇提到中国宗教迫害和酷刑的小说。今年7月泄露出来的索尼影业公司高管的电子邮件显示,有人建议他们删除电影《世界大对战》全球放映版中的一些场景,以避免遭遇中国审查。上个月,着名艺术家和政治异见者艾未未报告说,乐高公司拒绝接受他为拟议中一个有关言论自由的艺术作品做的特别大宗订单,因为乐高声称接受这样的订单相当於“积极介入”一个具有“政治指向”的项目,而这是违反公司政策的。

与此同时,中国政府仍在继续投资宣传,探索在外语媒体内容中暗施中共影响的新方式。过去这个月里,有新闻报导说,中国公司将增加对英语电影的出资,来自巴西丶俄罗斯丶中国丶印度和南非的传媒代表在北京举行的首届金砖五国媒体峰会上讨论了建立一个联合“信息网络”事宜。

这些活动的结果是,世界上越来越多的人正在遭遇许多中国人每天都会遭遇的伦理选择和现实选择难题。与此同时,思想自由的中国人丶被迫害者丶以及民间领导者有被边缘化的危险,有时他们甚至被禁止离境前往自由国家。

有些外国公司或机构没有料到丶或号称没有料到来自北京的政治或经济施压,但是考虑到中共的一贯做法,这种情况令人很难体谅。的确,世界上有很多人找到了抵抗的决心和办法,坚定民主价值,抵抗诱惑,甚至不惜付出代价。

前面提到的加拿大小姐林耶凡拒绝停止代表法轮功和其它人权问题的倡导活动,尽管她生活在中国的父亲遭到了骚扰,她本人则失去了竞争世界小姐的机会。针对来自中国用户留下的成千上万条批评(这些帖子很可能是中国当局安排人来贴的),台湾总统选举反对党候选人蔡英文在她的脸书页上做了一个坚守原则的回复,欢迎他们来到这个被中国政府封锁的社交网站,邀请他们体验一下台湾民主。在艾未未的情况,许多人对他的项目表达了支持,对乐高的做法表示失望。艾未未在三个国家设立了乐高收集点,以便支持者可以为他的艺术项目捐赠乐高。

从2013年至今,在美国和加拿大,至少有三所大学选择中断了与中国政府办的孔子学院的关系。他们在和孔子学院的合作中遭遇了涉及就业歧视丶中国官方媒体报导丶以及限制学术自由的问题。

其它机构则做出了更加系统性的回应。2014年6月,美国大学教授协会敦促美国大学取消与孔子学院的协议,除非大学对课程表以及用人获得更大的控制。2015年10月,美国12家主要出版商签署了美国笔会中心的一个保证,监督和应对中国对外国作者的中文译本进行的审查,坚守透明和自由表达等出版业标准。

新年即将到来,中国与世界的关系中有许多不确定成分。 但是有一点是确定的。尽管中国政府声称不干涉其它国家的事务,但是中国审查与宣传现在已成为一个全球现象。

因此,国际社会成员,不管是个体、机构、政府、还是企业,必须决定是接受这个趋势呢还是携手抵制,扭转这个现象。


纸媒/广播

新的新闻道德委员会将党对媒体的控制制度化

11月5日,官方新华社宣布建立一个新的委员会,监督9月份由至少50家媒体签署的《新闻出版广播影视从业人员职业道德自律公约》的执行情况。这个由中国广播电影电视社会组织联合会建立的委员会通过警告、降职、解职、下令公开道歉、甚至列入媒体机构黑名单等方式,对违约行为作出惩罚。从2013年中起,各省市级已经成立了新闻道德委员会,这个全国委员会的成立符合同一个趋势。这个委员会由不同政府部门的官员组成,由当地党宣部门领导。最新成立的一个省级新闻道德委员会是在11月30日在安徽省宣布的。在大多数情况下,表面上的理由是制止越来越严重的不文明内容、假新闻、和有偿新闻。但是香港大学中国传媒研究计划的班志远指出,仔细考察官方的用词后发现,加强记者的“政治服从”才是总体目标。例如,《自律公约》第一条规定要“维护党的领导和国家利益,不发表或传播损害党和国家形象的言论。”

在习近平的领导下,管制部门和党宣部门有系统地寻求重建党对社会话语的支配,不管是线上还是线下。例如,新华社11月6日宣布,网络记者需要取得记者证才能直接进行采访和报道,而不是简单转发传统媒体的报道。尽管594名记者获得了记者证,但他们全部来自党媒或政府媒体网站,其他如新浪、搜狐等较受欢迎的商业网站的工作人员则被排除在外。这样的区别对待,与对商业媒体转发的限制结合起来,符合自由之家2014年对新闻媒体微博发帖的研究结果,即自习近平2012年成为中共领导人以来,新浪微博受到很大影响,已经明显从商业性转变为政府控制的社交媒体。


纸媒/广播

国家媒体和审查者推广和保护习近平的形象

官方媒体、特别是中共喉舌,向来以报道最高领导人每天的活动为特征。但是在习近平的领导下,这种现象又到达了一个新高度,对“习大大”个人化的报道远远超过了他的前任或者其他中央政治局常委。12月4日,中共旗舰报《人民日报》头版12个大标题中,11个以习近平三字开头。第二版几乎完全是习近平与非洲数国领导人见面的照片。李克强直到第四版才被提到。根据中国传媒研究计划负责人钱刚2014的一项研究,习近平名字的出现次数甚至超过邓小平,在同等时间长度内,比胡锦涛和江泽民的出现次数多两倍。官方媒体除外,还有一本习近平语录、一个手机应用、和一个互动测验。对习近平既全面又推崇的报道也体现在商业性报纸上,如《南方周末》。后者曾经因批评性较强的调查报道而知名。12月3日《南方周末》头版刊登了一篇长达13,000字的特写,赞扬习近平进行的改革。

与此同时,审查者也在以同样的力度删除任何甚至非直接地负面涉及习近平的非官方照片或评论。11月13日,湖北红安国际育才学校老师张爱嘉被学校开除,原因是她在微信上发帖说,真正有知识的人不会背书名,吹嘘他读了多少书。尽管此帖没有提到习近平,但是张爱嘉的上司受到警察以及当地教育局的施压而解雇了她,因为她的发言被解释为嘲笑习近平在国外访问时喜欢展示他多么了解中国经典,又看过什么样的外国名著。12月6日的《南华早报》报道了一个更直接的违纪事件,中国官方媒体中国新闻社的四名工作人员在错误地将在南非举行的中非高峰会上“习近平致辞”排版成“习近平辞职”后,遭到停职。另外,官方新华社登载了一张习近平、英国首相卡梅伦和阿根廷足球明星阿奎罗的即兴自拍,但是根据香港大学实时追踪微博删贴情况的Weiboscope,这张照片成为新浪微博10月至11月两月期间被删除最严重的照片之一。


新媒体

禁止党员妄议中央,干部遭罚,网民幽默

10月21日,中共中央向其8千8百万党员发布了新的《中国共产党纪律处分条例》。在一长列关于政治纪律、组织纪律、群众纪律、个人品德的规定中,有一条引发了特别大的争议:第46条禁止“妄议中央”。Wendy Zhou在她的分析中指出,中共党报《人民日报》中所指的“妄议中央”过去40年很少出现在党内禁令中,但过去一年浮现出来。人们开始把这些新规定与毛时代的党内清洗和政治运动进行比较,这样的比较又旋即遭到删除。一个在发帖后50分钟内就遭到删除的微博帖子贴了一份报纸宣布这些纪律处分条例的照片,并辅以“文革之风悄然泛起,明目张胆一言堂?”其他人也表达了类似的担心,包括著名法学教授贺卫方。

党员《纪律处分条例》宣布以来,已有两名中共干部因发表被认为是批评中央的公开言论(包括网上发言)而被开除。11月2日,地方党报《新疆日报》报道说,其总编辑赵新尉因发表反对中央政府新疆政策的言论而被开除。11月11日,广东省委纪律检查委员会报道说,一所大学的英语系副主任梁新生因在微博上发表“激进言论”而受到撤职处分。这些新的规定和惩罚,加上最近在新疆和西藏查处干部私下进行宗教活动和政治活动,显示中共在更多地使用纪律检查委员会来清除内部异见,而不仅仅是腐败。

新的规定还引起了网民的嘲笑。其中一个网民指出,一则关于春节的帖子虽然并没有“妄议中央”但也被删除了。其他人则指出,联合国反酷刑委员会是不是应该因为“妄议中央”而受到惩罚。


纸媒/新媒体

被监禁的记者获得释放,其他因政治言论受到惩罚的人

近期涉及记者和言论自由倡导者的情况表明,来自国内和国际的压力有时会迫使中共放人,但是并不表示在更大范围地缓和打压。

  • 记者允许监外服刑:11月26日,北京高级法院为独立记者高瑜减刑两年,并准许她在家或医院服刑。今年71岁的高瑜4月被判处7年徒刑,她被指控将中共的一个内部文件提供给境外网站。她否认这个指控。她多次被拒绝取保就医,但是国内和国际要求在人道基础上释放她的呼声也许迫使中国当局做出了让步。
  • 活动人士因参加新闻自由抗议而获刑: 11月27日,广州一个法庭判处著名人权活动者杨茂东(他更以笔名郭飞雄著称)6年徒刑。他的同道孙德胜以及刘远东分别被判处两年半和3年。这三人因2013年初在《南方周末》外举行抗议、要求新闻自由而被判刑。郭飞雄案有各种程序违法现象,包括法官在判决庭上突然给郭飞雄加上“寻衅滋事”的指控。在网上传播的《判决庭上的最后答复》中,郭飞雄表达了对中国的民主未来的决心和乐观。他曾因为维权活动在2004年至2009年之间坐牢。
  • 高智晟律师在批评朋友被判刑后失联:自由亚洲12月2日报道说,著名人权律师高智晟与外界失去联系。在此之前不久,高智晟撰文批评对郭飞雄的判刑(见上),并表示执行人权迫害的中共官员未来将受到审判。当这封信在社交媒体上传播之时,高智晟被软禁在位于陕西老家他已故母亲的窑洞中。在2006至2014年高智晟自己遭到法外监禁及牢狱之前,他和郭飞雄曾经在数个维权案件中合作。
  • 香港记者、书商面临中国大陆的报复: 11月5日,两名记者在深圳出庭,就“非法经营”指控认罪。出版商王建民和编辑呙中校涉及在香港出版发行两种常常触及中国上层敏感政治关系的杂志。尽管这两种杂志在中国大陆出售量很小,不足以构成法律上“非法经营”所规定的最低数额,但法官同意将在香港的获利包括在本案,来便给指控找到理由。此二人2014年5月被拘留;法庭还没有宣布他们的判决。 另一方面,10月下旬,涉及香港一家出版商的4人在泰国失踪,据信现在在中国当局手里。至12月初为止,外界没有更多有关他们的信息。

香港/中国之外

媒体购买与网络攻击

近年来,中共对香港和台湾媒体的间接影响力越来越大,两起可能的购买会令这个问题更加严重。同时,来自中国的网络攻击仍在继续,但是迹象显示,一些形式的威慑可能有一定效果。

  • 近几个星期来,多个媒体报道了中国商人马云或者他的电子商务公司阿里巴巴将购买香港著名英文报纸《南华早报》的股份。这家报纸的拥有人、南华媒体集团行政总裁胡以晨在11月25日的一份声明中证实报纸正在与一家买主商谈,引起了种种猜测。如果购买交易谈成的话,这将是中国互联网公司在中国大陆外购买报纸的第一例,尽管阿里巴巴和马云本人已经在中国和香港购买了一系列媒体资产。《南华早报》不久前更换了主编,不少主要编辑记者辞职,这个购买交易令人更加忧虑这家报纸是否能够不受北京影响而保持编辑独立性。12月11日购买了《南华早报》。】
  • 与中国有关的美国电影制片人欲购买台湾电视网:《洛杉矶时报》11月21日报道说,在好莱坞圈中有“中国先生”之称的美国电影制片人Dan Mintz 与美国公司卡莱尔集团达成协议,个人购买台湾东森电视网61%的控制股份。东森电视在台湾和海外拥有20个频道和子公司,是世界上最大的私有中文电视网。Mintz是中国电视和电影公司DMG娱乐公司美国子公司的总裁。他在美中合制《钢铁侠3》中扮演了关键角色,电影的中文版进行了改动,以便取悦中国当局、加强对中国观众的吸引力。这个交易如果谈成,还需要得到台湾政府管制部门的批准。后者已经表示,考虑到Mintz 与中国大陆的关系,他们会密切考量这个交易。
  • 澳大利亚气象局电脑受到网络攻击,攻击者疑为中国澳大利亚广播公司12月2日报道说,澳大利亚国家气象局的电脑系统遭到攻击,官方来源说,他们基本上确定这次“大规模”攻击来自中国。气象局拥有一台超级电脑以及其它与国防部和其它政府部门连接的资源,这使之成为一个高价值情报目标。澳大利亚官员没有公开指责中国政府是这次攻击的幕后指使者,中国外交部一名女发言人否认北京与此有关。
  • 在遭到美国起诉后,中国网络间谍有所下降: 在美中网络安全会谈前夕,《华盛顿邮报》11月30日援引现任和前任美国官员说,自从美国司法部2014年5月起诉了5名中国军官后,来自中国军方的商业网络间谍活动有所下降。官员和私营领域分析人士报告说,整体而言网络间谍侵入仍在继续,责任转移到诸如国家安全部这样的非军方情报机构。但是,这个变化似乎表明,从执法方面采取的坚定措施有效地改变了中国方面的行为。

未来看点

假日期间审查更紧,对活动人士进行密集审判:可能为了将媒体注意力以及政治或外交批评降到最低,中国当局专门喜欢在西方国家圣诞节/新年假期期间加强审查、审判著名活动人士。法庭在感恩节次日宣判郭飞雄案,对接下来的这个月,这可能不是个好信号。注意观察中国防火墙的更新升级;注意观察对人权律师、特别是浦志强(浦已未经审判被关押了20个月)以及2015年7月被抓的一批律师的审判或判刑。

更多对妄议的惩罚、以及抵触:注意更多共产党干部因“妄议中央”而遭到惩罚的案例,但是,随着党内批评习近平的人被消声,也要注意观察中共内部不满与怨恨的迹象。

避免审查的新战术:科技新闻网站11月底报道说,一种新的浏览器插件使得中国用户可以访问被封网站。这个名叫缓存浏览器的工具由位于阿姆赫斯特的麻萨诸塞大学研究者开发,它利用审查者很难封锁内容分发网络中的具体信息、但封锁整个网络又会造成连带损害这一特点。注意这个工具的终端用户版什么时候出台(现在做好的还仅仅是原型,你可以在这里找到),注意跟踪中国网民的使用,以及中国政府审查者不顾连带损害,如何封锁更多云服务或内容分发网络进行应对。

中國媒體快報 第110號,2015年12月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0
hong kong china protest

主要新聞

 

特寫

抵抗中國對國際媒體的影響

莎拉庫克,自由之家資深東亞研究分析員,《中國媒體快報》負責人

一位華裔加拿大女士因為其人權宣導活動和信仰而被禁止進入中國參加世界小姐選美比賽,比賽召集人竟然沒有對此作出任何抗議。 泰國當局無視一位逃離迫害的中國政治漫畫家的聯合國難民身份,將其遣返回中國。 路透社的一個調查發現,14個國家的33個電臺在不引人注意地廣播中國共產黨的宣傳。

說明:這幅漫畫把中國藝術家艾未未描繪成一個被禁止的樂高人物。 之前樂高公司拒絕接受艾未未為他的下一個藝術品而做的大宗訂單。 來源: 變態辣椒

僅僅是這幾件11月份發生或披露的例子就可以展示中國政府如何在世界範圍內宣導它的觀點,壓制對中國的批評。

這並不是一個新現象。 國際媒體協助中心2013年的一份研究翔實有據地描述了中國如何對美國、歐洲、亞洲和非洲的一些媒體施加影響。不過,隨著習近平在國內鉗緊意識形態控制,相關的內容限制和操縱正在海外波及更多的機構和經濟領域。

自從習近平2012年11月成為中共領導人以來,自由之家《中國媒體快報》已經記錄了發生在17個國家和國際機構40多個這樣的例子,顯示中國的資訊控制負面地影響到中國境外的言論自由。 這些例子很可能只是冰山一角。 中共的干預和影響延伸到了令人驚訝的媒體領域,包括流行音樂、熱氣球活動、以及錄影遊戲。

北京一直在使用經濟刺激、恐嚇手法、甚至文化論辯來推動它的要求,但是令人不安的是,外國機構的反應相當貧弱,在很多情況下陷於被動或同謀。

2014年,《讀者文摘》按照中國的要求從它為國際市場編輯的一本短篇小說集中除去了一篇提到中國宗教迫害和酷刑的小說。今年7月洩露出來的索尼影業公司高管的電子郵件顯示,有人建議他們刪除電影《世界大對戰》全球放映版中的一些場景,以避免遭遇中國審查。上個月,著名藝術家和政治異見者艾未未報告說,樂高公司拒絕接受他為擬議中一個有關言論自由的藝術作品做的特別大宗訂單,因為樂高聲稱接受這樣的訂單相當於「積極介入」一個具有「政治指向」的項目,而這是違反公司政策的。

與此同時,中國政府仍在繼續投資宣傳,探索在外語媒體內容中暗施中共影響的新方式。 過去這個月里,有新聞報導說,中國公司將增加對英語電影的出資,來自巴西、俄羅斯、中國、印度和南非的傳媒代表在北京舉行的首屆金磚五國媒體峰會上討論了建立一個聯合「資訊網路」事宜。

這些活動的結果是,世界上越來越多的人正在遭遇許多中國人每天都會遭遇的倫理選擇和現實選擇難題。與此同時,思想自由的中國人、被迫害者、以及民間領導者有被邊緣化的危險,有時他們甚至被禁止離境前往自由國家。

有些外國公司或機構沒有料到、或號稱沒有料到來自北京的政治或經濟施壓,但是考慮到中共的一貫做法,這種情況令人很難體諒。的確,世界上有很多人找到了抵抗的決心和辦法,堅定民主價值,抵抗誘惑,甚至不惜付出代價。

前面提到的加拿大小姐林耶凡拒絕停止代表法輪功和其它人權問題的倡導活動,儘管她生活在中國的父親遭到了騷擾,她本人則失去了競爭世界小姐的機會。針對來自中國用戶留下的成千上萬條批評(這些帖子很可能是中國當局安排人來貼的),台灣總統選舉反對黨候選人蔡英文在她的臉書頁上做了一個堅守原則的回复,歡迎他們來到這個被中國政府封鎖的社交網站,邀請他們體驗一下台灣民主。在艾未未的情況,許多人對他的項目表達了支持,對樂高的做法表示失望。艾未未在三個國家設立了樂高收集點,以便支持者可以為他的藝術項目捐贈樂高。

從2013年至今,在美國和加拿大,至少有三所大學選擇中斷了與中國政府辦的孔子學院的關係。他們在和孔子學院的合作中遭遇了涉及就業歧視、中國官方媒體報導、以及限制學術自由的問題。

其它機構則做出了更加系統性的回應。2014年6月,美國大學教授協會敦促美國大學取消與孔子學院的協議,除非大學對課程表以及用人獲得更大的控制。2015年10月,美國12家主要出版商簽署了美國筆會中心的一個保證,監督和應對中國對外國作者的中文譯本進行的審查,堅守透明和自由表達等出版業標準。

新年即將到來,中國與世界的關係中有許多不確定成分。但是有一點是確定的。儘管中國政府聲稱不幹涉其它國家的事務,但是中國審查與宣傳現在已成為一個全球現象。

因此,國際社會成員,不管是個體、機構、政府、還是企業,必須決定是接受這個趨勢呢還是攜手抵制,扭轉這個現象。


紙媒/廣播

新的「新聞道德委員會」將党對媒體的控制制度化

11月5日,官方新華社宣佈建立一個新的委員會,監督9月份由至少50家媒體簽署的《新聞出版廣播影視從業人員職業道德自律公約》的執行情況。 這個由中國廣播電影電視社會組織聯合會建立的委員會通過警告、降職、解職、下令公開道歉、甚至列入媒體機構黑名單等方式,對違約行為作出懲罰。從2013年中起,各省市級已經成立了新聞道德委員會,這個全國委員會的成立符合同一個趨勢。 這個委員會由不同政府部門的官員組成,由當地党宣部門領導。 最新成立的一個省級新聞道德委員會是在11月30日在安徽省宣佈的。 在大多數情況下,表面上的理由是制止越來越嚴重的不文明內容、假新聞、和有償新聞。 但是香港大學中國傳媒研究計畫的班志遠指出,仔細考察官方的用詞後發現,強化記者的「政治服從」才是總體目標。 例如,《自律公約》第一條規定要「維護党的領導和國家利益,不發表或傳播損害党和國家形象的言論。 ”

在習近平的領導下,管制部門和党宣部門有系統地尋求重建黨對社會話語的支配,不管是線上還是線下。例如,新華社11月6日宣佈,網路記者需要取得記者證才能直接進行採訪和報導,而不是簡單轉發傳統媒體的報導。儘管594名記者獲得了記者證,但他們全部來自党媒或政府媒體網站,其他如新浪、搜狐等較受歡迎的商業網站的工作人員則被排除在外。這樣的區別對待,與對商業媒體轉發的限制結合起來,符合自由之家2014年對新聞媒體微博發帖的研究結果,即自習近平2012年成為中共領導人以來,新浪微博受到很大影響,已經明顯從商業性轉變為政府控制的社交媒體。


紙媒/廣播

國家媒體和審查者推廣和保護習近平的形象

官方媒體、特別是中共喉舌,向來以報導最高領導人每天的活動為特徵。 但是在習近平的領導下,這種現象又到達了一個新高度,對「習大大」個人化的報導遠遠超過了他的前任或者其他中央政治局常委。12月4日,中共旗艦報《人民日報》頭版12個大標題中,11個以習近平三字開頭。 第二版幾乎完全是習近平與非洲數國領導人見面的照片。 李克強直到第四版才被提到。 根據中國傳媒研究計畫負責人錢剛2014的一項研究,習近平名字的出現次數甚至超過鄧小平,在同等時間長度內,比胡錦濤和江澤民的出現次數多兩倍。官方媒體除外,還有一本習近平語錄、一個手機應用、和一個互動測驗。 對習近平既全面又推崇的報導也體現在商業性報紙上,如《南方週末》。 後者曾經因批評性較強的調查報導而知名。12月3日《南方週末》頭版刊登了一篇長達13,000字的特寫,讚揚習近平進行的改革。

與此同時,審查者也在以同樣的力度刪除任何甚至非直接地負面涉及習近平的非官方照片或評論。 11月13日,湖北紅安國際育才學校老師張愛嘉被學校開除,原因是她在微信上發帖說,真正有知識的人不會背書名,吹噓他讀了多少書。儘管此帖沒有提到習近平,但是張愛嘉的上司受到員警以及當地教育局的施壓而解雇了她,因為她的發言被解釋為嘲笑習近平在國外訪問時喜歡展示他多麼瞭解中國經典,又看過什麼樣的外國名著。12月6日的《南華早報》報導了一個更直接的違紀事件,中國官方媒體中國新聞社的四名工作人員在錯誤地將在南非舉行的中非高峰會上「習近平致辭」排版成「習近平辭職」後,遭到停職。另外,官方新華社登載了一張習近平、英國首相卡梅倫和阿根廷足球明星阿奎羅的即興自拍,但是根據香港大學即時追蹤微博刪貼情況的Weiboscope,這張照片成為新浪微博10月至11月兩月期間被刪除最嚴重的照片之一。


新媒體

禁止黨員「妄議中央」,幹部遭罰,網民幽默

10月21日,中共中央向其8千8百萬黨員發佈了新的《中國共產黨紀律處分條例》。 在一長列關於政治紀律、組織紀律、群眾紀律、個人品德的規定中,有一條引發了特別大的爭議:第46條禁止「妄議中央」。Wendy Zhou在她的分析中指出,中共黨報《人民日報》中所指的「妄議中央」過去40年很少出現在黨內禁令中,但過去一年浮現出來。人們開始把這些新規定與毛時代的黨內清洗和政治運動進行比較,這樣的比較又旋即遭到刪除。一個在發帖後50分鐘內就遭到刪除的微博帖子貼了一份報紙宣佈這些紀律處分條例的照片,並輔以「文革之風悄然泛起,明目張膽一言堂?」其他人也表達了類似的擔心,包括著名法學教授賀衛方。

黨員《紀律處分條例》宣佈以來,已有兩名中共幹部因發表被認為是批評中央的公開言論(包括網上發言)而被開除。11月2日,地方黨報《新疆日報》報導說,其總編輯趙新尉因發表反對中央政府新疆政策的言論而被開除。11月11日,廣東省委紀律檢查委員會報導說,一所大學的英語系副主任梁新生因在微博上發表「激進言論」而受到撤職處分。這些新的規定和懲罰,加上最近在新疆和西藏查處幹部私下進行宗教活動和政治活動,顯示中共在更多地使用紀律檢查委員會來清除內部異見,而不僅僅是腐敗。

新規定還引起了網民的嘲笑。 其中一個網民指出,一則關於春節的帖子雖然並沒有「妄議中央」但也被刪除了。其他人則指出,聯合國反酷刑委員會是不是應該因為「妄議中央」而受到懲罰。


紙媒/新媒體

被監禁的記者獲得釋放,其他因政治言論受到懲罰的人

近期涉及記者和言論自由倡導的情況表明,來自國內和國際的壓力有時會迫使中共放人,但是並不表示在更大範圍地緩和打壓。

  • :11月26日,北京高級法院為獨立記者高瑜減刑兩年,並准許她在家或醫院服刑。 今年71歲的高瑜4月被判處7年徒刑,她被指控將中共的一個內部文檔提供給境外網站。 她否認這個指控。 她多次被拒絕取保就醫,但是國內和國際要求在人道基礎上釋放她的呼聲也許迫使中國當局做出了讓步。
  • 活動人士因參加新聞自由抗議而獲刑: 11月27日,廣州一個法庭判處著名人權活動者楊茂東(他更以筆名郭飛雄著稱)6年徒刑。 他的同道孫德勝以及劉遠東分別被判處兩年半和3年。 這三人因2013年初在《南方週末》外舉行抗議、要求新聞自由而被判刑。 郭飛雄案有各種程式違法現象,包括法官在判決庭上突然給郭飛雄加上「尋釁滋事」的指控。 在網上傳播的《判決庭上的最後答覆》中,郭飛雄表達了對中國的民主未來的決心和樂觀。他曾因為維權活動在2004年至2009年之間坐牢。
  • 高智晟律師在批評朋友被判刑後失聯:自由亞洲12月2日報導說,著名人權律師高智晟與外界失去聯繫。 在此之前不久,高智晟撰文批評對郭飛雄的判刑(見上),並表示執行人權迫害的中共官員未來將受到審判。 當這封信在社交媒體上傳播之時,高智晟被軟禁在位於陝西老家他已故母親的窯洞中。 在2006至2014年高智晟自己遭到法外監禁及牢獄之前,他和郭飛雄曾經在數個維權案件中合作。
  • 香港記者、書商面臨中國大陸的報復: 11月5日,兩名記者在深圳出庭,就「非法經營」指控認罪。 出版商王建民和編輯咼中校涉及在香港出版發行兩種常常觸及中國上層敏感政治關係的雜誌。 儘管這兩種雜誌在中國大陸出售量很小,不足以構成法律上「非法經營」所規定的最低數額,但法官同意將在香港的獲利包括在本案,來便給指控找到理由。 此二人2014年5月被拘留;法庭還沒有宣佈他們的判決。 另一方面,10月下旬,涉及香港一家出版商的4人在泰國失蹤,據信現在在中國當局手裡。 至12月初為止,外界沒有更多有關他們的資訊。

香港/中國之外

媒體購買與網路攻擊

近年來,中共對香港和臺灣媒體的間接影響力越來越大,兩起可能的購買會令這個問題更加嚴重。 同時,來自中國的網路攻擊仍在繼續,但是跡象顯示,一些形式的威懾可能有一定效果。

  • 大陸億萬富翁購買《南華早報》?近幾個星期來,多個媒體報導了中國商人馬雲或者他的電子商務公司阿里巴巴將購買香港著名英文報紙《南華早報》的股份。 這家報紙的擁有人、南華媒體集團行政總裁胡以晨在11月25日的一份聲明中證實報紙正在與一家買主商談,引起了種種猜測。 如果購買交易談成的話,這將是中國互聯網公司在中國大陸外購買報紙的第一例,儘管阿里巴巴和馬雲本人已經在中國和香港購買了一系列媒體資產。 《南華早報》不久前更換了主編,不少主要編輯記者辭職,這個購買交易令人更加憂慮這家報紙是否能夠不受北京影響而保持編輯獨立性。 【更新:報導證實阿里巴巴在12月11日購買了《南華早報》。 】
  • 與中國有關的美國電影製片人欲購買臺灣電視網:《洛杉磯時報》11月21日報導說,在好萊塢圈中有「中國先生」之稱的美國電影製片人Dan Mintz 與美國公司卡萊爾集團達成協議,個人購買臺灣東森電視網61%的控制股份。東森電視在臺灣和海外擁有20個頻道和子公司,是世界上最大的私營中文電視網。 Mintz是中國電視和電影公司DMG娛樂公司美國子公司的總裁。 他在美中合制《鋼鐵俠3》中扮演了關鍵角色,電影的中文版進行了改動,以便取悅中國當局、加強對中國觀眾的吸引力。這個交易如果談成,還需要得到臺灣政府管制部門的批准。後者已經表示,考慮到Mintz 與中國大陸的關係,他們會密切考量這個交易。
  • 澳大利亞氣象局電腦受到網路攻擊,攻擊者疑為中國:澳大利亞廣播公司12月2日報導說,澳大利亞國家氣象局的電腦系統遭到攻擊,官方來源說,他們基本上確定這次「大規模」攻擊來自中國。氣象局擁有一台超級電腦以及其它與國防部和其它政府部門連接的資源,這使之成為一個高價值情報目標。澳大利亞官員沒有公開指責中國政府是這次攻擊的幕後指使者,中國外交部一名女發言人否認北京與此有關。
  • 在遭到美國起訴後,中國網路間諜有所下降:在美中網路安全會談前夕,《華盛頓郵報》11月30日援引現任和前任美國官員說,自從美國司法部2014年5月起訴了5名中國軍官後,來自中國軍方的商業網絡間諜活動有所下降。官員和私營領域分析人士報告說,整體而言網路間諜侵入仍在繼續,責任轉移到諸如國家安全部這樣的非軍方情報機構。 但是,這個變化似乎表明,從執法方面採取的堅定措施有效地改變了中國方面的行為。

未來看點

假日期間審查更緊,對活動人士進行密集審判:可能為了將媒體注意力以及政治或外交批評降到最低,中國當局專門喜歡在西方國家耶誕節/新年假期期間加強審查、審判著名活動人士。 法庭在感恩節次日宣判郭飛雄案,對接下來的這個月,這可能不是個好信號。 注意觀察中國防火牆的更新升級;注意觀察對人權律師、特別是浦志強(浦已未經審判被關押了20個月)以及2015年7月被抓的一批律師的審判或判刑。

更多對「妄議」的懲罰、以及抵觸:注意更多共產黨幹部因「妄議中央」而遭到懲罰的案例,但是,隨著黨內批評習近平的人被消聲,也要注意觀察中共內部不滿與怨恨的跡象。

避免審查的新戰術:科技新聞網站11月底報導說,一種新的瀏覽器外掛程式使得中國使用者可以訪問被封網站。 這個名叫緩存瀏覽器的工具由位於阿姆赫斯特的麻薩諸塞大學研究者開發,它利用審查者很難封鎖內容分發網路中的具體資訊、但封鎖整個網路又會造成連帶損害這一特點。 注意這個工具的終端使用者版什麼時候出臺(現在做好的還僅僅是原型,你可以在這裡找到),注意跟蹤中國網民的使用,以及中國政府審查者不顧連帶損害,如何封鎖更多雲服務或內容分發網路進行應對。

China Media Bulletin Issue No. 111 January 2016

$
0
0
Xi military parade compared to Winnie the Pooh in a car

2015 YEAR IN REVIEW

HEADLINES

 


FEATURE China’s most censored news topics in 2015

By Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst for East Asia and Director of the China Media Bulletin

A version of this article was also published by Foreign Policy on January 6, 2016.

This article was also published by the Diplomat on January 6, 2016.

Firemen fight flames after an explosion at a petrochemical plant in Zhangzhou, Fujian province in April 2015. Censors ordered news websites to downplay the story, one of 21 censorship directives related to health and safety issued by Chinese authorities during the year.Credit: Caixin.

Although the directives are supposed to be confidential, the California-based website China Digital Times (CDT) has become adept at obtaining leaked copies and publishing them in both Chinese and English. It is difficult to verify the orders’ authenticity beyond the efforts of CDT staff, but the leaked documents often match visible shifts in coverage and are generally treated as credible by observers of Chinese media.

Freedom House analyzed all 75 leaked directives published by CDT in 2015 that ordered “negative” actions such to delete an article, not send reporters, exclude a topic from website homepages, or close the relevant comment sections. Many directives also ordered some positive action, like relying on “standard,” “authoritative” sources of information, or adhering to coverage by the official Xinhua News Agency. 

The sample is not exhaustive and may only be the tip of the iceberg; one leaked order from the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department in September was listed as number 320 for the year. Nevertheless, an examination of the available directives can provide insight into the party’s sensitivity to various types of content and which topics leaders deem most perilous to their hold on power.

The most commonly targeted categories of emerging news in 2015 were as follows:

1. Health and safety: Over one quarter of the analyzed directives (21 of 75) restricted coverage of man-made accidents, violent attacks, environmental pollution, or food safety. “Do not place news of the Zhangzhou, Fujian PX explosion in lead story sections of news agency websites,” reads one such order from April, for example, censoring news about a blast at a factory that produces paraxylene (PX), a chemical whose facilities have spurred numerous protests in recent years. Five instructions specifically aimed to limit circulation and discussion of the air pollution documentary Under the Dome, which went massively viral in early 2015 before being abruptly censored.

2. Economics: The second-largest group (11 of 75) restricted coverage of the Chinese economy, the stock market, or draft legislation related to economic policy. One such directive requires deletion of an article, “Why Hasn’t There Been an Inquiry into Rare Stock Market Crashes?” initially published by Sina and then reposted on blocked overseas Chinese websites.

3. Official wrongdoing: A total of 10 directives restricted coverage involving official wrongdoing, ranging from news of officials’ overseas assets, to police abuses, to deaths connected to corruption investigations. Two of the deaths pointed an unwelcome spotlight on an unsavory side of Xi’s aggressive anti-corruption campaign—a convicted ally of former Chongqing party secretary Bo Xilai died in custody and a whistleblower was beaten to death by unidentified masked men.

4. Media/censorship: Nine directives restricted discussion of official actions related to media or Internet controls, such as the detention of journalists, the blocking of online censorship circumvention tools, or new regulations requiring deletion of online music. As commercial news outlets known for their financial reporting coming under pressure in 2015, specific articles they published were singled out for deletion.

5. Party/official reputation: Eight directives restricted circulation of content or news that would undermine the positive image leaders sought to convey of individual officials or the party’s activities, including a large military parade held in September. Five of the directives aimed to limit circulation of disrespectful or humorous references to Chinese president Xi Jinping.

6. Civil society: Seven directives restricted coverage of civil society, including the detention of an anti-corruption activist and a summer crackdown on human rights lawyers that was part of an unprecedented assault on China’s “rights defense” movement during the year. 

The remaining directives sought to control reporting on seemingly innocuous official activity, foreign affairs, Hong Kong, and Tibet.

In 2014, Freedom House conducted a similar analysis of 318 censorship and propaganda directives published between November 2012 and May 2014. Although the samples are not all-inclusive, a comparison of the most censored topics from that period and from 2015 suggests a number of possible changes in CCP priorities.

TopicDirection of changeRanking
Health and safety#3 #1
Economics#7 #2
Official wrongdoing#1 #3
Media/censorship#6 #4
Civil society#4 #6
Foreign affairs#5 #8

It is impossible to explain conclusively the causes of these shifts. However, they appear to reflect both the increased political sensitivity of certain topics, such as the state of the Chinese economy during a slowdown, and the absence of other forces such as web users and journalists exposing official wrongdoing—and therefore needing to be censored—in an era of tightened media and Internet controls.

Yet in 2016, Chinese citizens’ need for timely, accurate information about the very topics targeted for censorship in these directives—environmental pollution, excessive police force, the economy, and others—is not going to decrease. The country’s journalists, netizens, technologists, and the international community will need to find new, creative ways to produce and disseminate news in what is increasingly looking like the most restrictive period for Chinese media in over a decade.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA Valuable journalism fades as state-funded digital media grow

The year 2015 may have marked the end of an era in Chinese journalism. Until recently, liberal, commercial print media engaged in aggressive and influential reporting that also formed part of a successful business model. The decline is due to a combination of tighter government controls, targeted prosecutions, and the kinds of financial pressures facing print media worldwide.

Although investigative journalists and commercial media have faced periodic reprisals for over a decade, and more pressure than usual since 2012, events in 2015 were decisive in reducing the space and influence these media outlets had tried to carve out for themselves in a politically restrictive and highly competitive market.

The Guangdong-based Southern Media Group has been hit especially hard. Last January, former Southern Weekly journalist Fang Kecheng lamented the failure of 2013 protests by reporters and others who sought to combat censorship at the paper, one of the country’s most influential liberal news outlets and a pioneer of serious investigative journalism in China. Fang said censorship demands had mounted since the protests, and an exodus of experienced journalists to various internet start-ups ensued.

In April, authorities revoked the publishing permit for Money Week and shut down the website of the 21st Century Business Herald. Staffers from the two Southern Media Group outlets had been detained in 2014 under allegations of extortion. In August, Guangdong authorities published a report listing various new requirements that had been imposed on the company, including an increase in the percentage of CCP members among its employees. In September, three of the group’s papers ran glowing coverage of a military parade held in Beijing, one of the CCP’s largest propaganda events of the year.

The final blow of 2015 came on Christmas Eve, when Shen Hao, the former chairman of the company’s 21st Century Media unit and a former Southern Weekly editor whose idealism and professionalism inspired a generation of journalism students, was sentenced to four years in prison on extortion charges that many colleagues believe to be fabricated. Amid the Southern Media Group’s political tribulations and falling readership, what was once among the most successful commercial media companies in China has reportedly been forced to accept millions of dollars in government subsidies. “The case of the 21st Century group showed that journalism has been annihilated in China,” Cheng Yizhong, a prominent journalist who has served time in prison for his reporting, told the Washington Post. “The ruling party has won the war it started in 2003, completely.”

Similar pressures have appeared at other commercial media outlets over the last two years, causing many to break up investigative reporting teams and even close down altogether. In a watershed moment in 2015, Wang Xiaolu, a reporter from Caijing, one of the country’s most respected financial magazines, was arrested and paraded on state television in August for an article that reported on the stock market around the time of one of the summer’s precipitous sell-offs. Wang’s case was widely seen as an attempt to scapegoat and intimidate financial reporters as the government attempted to prop up the market.

Adding to the shifting direction of news coverage in China, a number of new, state-subsidized digital media outlets are gaining readers and increasing the dominance of official narratives. The most prominent is the Paper, a web-based publication entirely funded by the government under the Shanghai United Media Group. As Tabitha Speelman outlined in a recent article, the Paper is China’s first digital news organization to create a mobile application featuring its own content, which consists of an incongruous combination of social exposés that occasionally get censored, propaganda-like pieces, and arts and culture news. With this recipe, the Paper“has distinguished itself by successfully integrating into the media diet of many young Chinese, most of whom would normally not follow or share state media’s often stodgy coverage.” Its success has reportedly prompted satisfied reactions from the State Internet Information Office and copycat online platforms in at least six other provinces or municipalities.

Taken together, these developments paint a disheartening picture for China watchers who saw publications like those at the Southern Media Group as proof that quality journalism could survive—and even thrive—in one of the world’s the most restrictive political environments.

A few journalistic stalwarts, like Hu Shuli’s Caixin, carry on. But with the regime’s thumb on the scale, the model of journalism that produced hard-hitting, popular investigative reporting on topics like official corruption and tainted vaccines is increasingly losing out to a format whose most prominent feature is sunny headlines about government work and the daily activities of Xi Jinping.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA Jailed journalists, televised confessions reach new high

On December 1, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) published its annual census of imprisoned journalists. For the second year in a row, China topped the list as the country with the largest number behind bars. Its national total of 49 individuals is a record high since CPJ began tracking the statistic, though still likely only a fraction of the total number of Chinese citizens imprisoned for exercising their right to free expression. Of the 49 journalists, 25 were detained in 2014 and four in 2015. One person who narrowly avoided inclusion on the CPJ list was Gao Yu, a 71-year-old veteran journalist sentenced in April to seven years in prison, but released in November to serve a reduced five-year sentence at home or in hospital care.

A Freedom House analysis of the 49 cases offers additional insight on recent trends:

  • Gender: 47 male, 2 female
  • Ethnicity: 29 Han Chinese, 20 ethnic minorities (Uighur, Tibetan, and Yi). This represented a shift from several years ago, when an even larger percentage were ethnic minorities.
  • Medium: 13 print, 1 broadcast, 35 web. This reflects the shift to digital media, as well as the Communist Party’s generally tighter grip on broadcast versus print media, which makes it less likely that a broadcast journalist would need to be punished.
  • Profession: 18 professional journalists, 28 writers, publishers, or citizen journalists. This breakdown represents a shift from the pre–Xi Jinping era, when the likelihood of professional journalists facing prison was quite low. It also includes four journalists or publishers from Hong Kong. Of the 18 professional journalists, 14 were jailed on apparently trumped-up charges of financial mismanagement, corruption, or illegal business activity.
  • Average sentence length: 9 years, not including 3 sentences of life imprisonment, and 20 individuals whose sentences have yet to be announced. The sentences for Han Chinese professional journalists tend to be shorter than those for prodemocracy writers or ethnic minority reporters.
  • Televised confessions: 10 documented confessions by journalists detained since January 2014 (including Gao Yu and another reporter since released from custody and therefore excluded from CPJ’s latest count), compared with 0 among those imprisoned earlier. The phenomenon of televised confessions, now relatively common, was virtually nonexistent before Xi Jinping took power.

In addition to the cases above, the year 2015 was notable for the detention of a large number of human rights lawyers and other legal professionals, many of whom frequently used social media services like Sina Weibo or Tencent’s WeChat to share details of cases or comment on government policies. On December 22, a Beijing court sentenced prominent free expression attorney Pu Zhiqiang to a three-year suspended sentence over seven microblog posts in which he mocked government officials and criticized harsh policies in Xinjiang. He was released from custody after 19 months in detention, thin and in poor health, and forbidden from practicing law again. Foreign journalists and diplomats who attempted to attend his December 14 trial were harassed and denied access; hundreds of Chinese citizens also gathered to support Pu, and at least 18 were arrested, with several still in custody at year’s end.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA New legal provisions codify party’s primacy, increase penalties for dissent

During 2015, the National People’s Congress adopted several laws or amendments that codified existing media controls, increased penalties for certain forms of expression, and require technology firms to assist security agencies with investigations. Two laws—a National Security Law adopted in July and an Antiterrorism Law passed in December—drew criticism and expressions of concern from a wide array of foreign governments, business representatives, legal experts, and human rights groups. A series of amendments to the Criminal Law that came into effect in November received less attention but included several worrisome provisions.

The laws often conflate protection of the Chinese Communist Party’s political dominance with the idea of security for the nation or internationally recognized aims like preventing terrorism, protecting user privacy, and defending China’s territorial integrity. Importantly, the National Security Law prioritizes maintaining “the leadership of the CCP” and “the socialist system with Chinese characteristics” over other state security concerns in an unusually explicit manner, listing it first in several places. The new legal provisions also employ vague language and broad definitions, raising fears that security forces will use them to punish peaceful political or religious speech.

Several dimensions of the laws have raised particular concerns over their potentially negative impact on free expression:

  • A call to “strengthen guidance on news, propaganda, and public opinion about national security,” with the latter defined broadly to include economics, cultural expression, and religion (National Security Law)
  • A call for all key network infrastructure and information systems to be “secure and controllable” (National Security Law)
  • A ban preventing journalists and individual social media users from reporting on terrorist attacks and authorities’ response, including by using sources other than preapproved official accounts (Antiterrorism Law)
  • A requirement that technology firms provide authorities with technical information and help with decryption when security agencies demand it for the investigation of terrorism cases (Antiterrorism Law)
  • Penalties of up to five years in prison for promoting terrorism or “extremism” by producing or distributing print, audio, or video materials (Criminal Law amendment)
  • Penalties of up to seven years in prison for spreading “rumors” on the internet by publishing false information that threatens public security (Criminal Law amendment)
  • Penalties of up to life in prison (an increase from 15 years) for using a “heretical organization to undermine implementation of the law,” a charge often invoked to jail underground Christians and Falun Gong adherents, not only for religious activities but also for disseminating unapproved religious texts, critiques of CCP policies, and details of human rights abuses (Criminal Law amendment)
  • Penalties of up to three years in prison for failure by network service providers to perform duties (including monitoring, censorship, or protection of user data) that results in severe consequences (Criminal Law amendment)

Taken together, these legal measures do not represent a sea change in the CCP’s desire to control the information landscape, but they do empower the security apparatus and place more legal tools in the hands of those who would abuse state authority to suppress dissent. They also provide insight into the wide array of economic, political, technological, and military threats the CCP perceives itself to be facing. Their ultimate impact will depend on implementation—something to watch in the coming year.


NEW MEDIA Top stories on the Chinese internet in 2015

As the year 2015 drew to a close, the New York Times published a list of the top 10 news stories that most captured Chinese internet users’ attention, according to queries on Baidu, the country’s leading search engine. Other Chinese and foreign news organizations and websites released their own lists of the biggest stories, including the most censored. Some paralleled Baidu’s list, as popular stories often generated snarky netizen comments or damning unofficial photos, attracting the notice of censors.

Freedom House has compiled the following list, drawing on those published elsewhere, but also with an emphasis on important stories that might have had a greater impact on a less heavily censored Chinese internet.

1. Military parade: The September 3 military parade in Beijing, which commemorated the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Asia, was the news event that users looked up the most on Baidu’s search engine. It was also the most vigorously censored topic on the Sina Weibo microblogging platform. Six out of the top 20 most rapidly censored popular posts related to the parade, according to data Freedom House obtained from Hong Kong University’s Weiboscope. These included the top-ranked item, which compared Xi Jinping riding in an open car to Winnie the Pooh, and several others in which humorous verbal exchanges were added to photos of Xi with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

2. Tianjin explosions: A series of chemical explosions rocked Tianjin in August, causing over 170 deaths. It was the second most searched event, according to Baidu. Despite official efforts to control news coverage, online and traditional media outlets pushed back and sought answers to questions about accountability and corruption surrounding the fatal accident, in an increasingly rare instance of rebellious journalism. The explosion was the topic of the second most censored Weibo post of the year. And the most popular post of 2015 on the California-based China Digital Times was a photo essay by a Beijing Daily journalist who managed to report from the scene of the disaster despite authorities’ efforts to ban such coverage.

3. End of the one-child policy: In October the Communist Party announced the final removal of the decades-old one-child limit, permitting all Chinese families to have two children. The change pushed this topic to the number 3 spot on Baidu’s list.

4. Uniqlo sex video: A mobile-phone video in which a couple recorded themselves having sex in the fitting room of a Uniqlo clothing store in Beijing spread like wildfire and ranked number 4 on Baidu’s list. Several people were later detained in relation to the incident, although censors did not appear to clamp down on the arguably pornographic content as quickly as they tend to on information deemed politically threatening.

5. Mao mockery: A video of Bi Fujian, a television celebrity, at a private event singing a Cultural Revolution–era song with mocking side comments about Mao Zedong appeared online and made the number 5 spot on Baidu’s list. Censors ordered the deletion of the video—and of a “patriotic” article urging Bi to apologize—but apparently the recording and netizen interest in it continued to spread.

6. The stock-market plunge: A series of stock-market drops over the summer led to trillions of dollars in losses and a global stock sell-off. Associated Press business editors named China’s economic slowdown the top business story of the year worldwide. Given the story’s important political and economic ramifications, it is surprising that it did not rank higher on Baidu’s list. The limited attention by users (or possible downplaying of the issue by Baidu) could be due in part to a Communist Party directive to strengthen positive “economic propaganda,” an order that itself was the 10th most popular post on China Digital Times for the year.

7. Under the Dome This environmental documentary by former journalist Chai Jing was first posted online on February 28 and quickly garnered hundreds of millions of views. Over the following week, censorship authorities issued increasingly restrictive instructions to curb its spread, finally ordering its deletion from all video streaming sites on March 6. A so-called “airpocalypse” of especially harmful smog hit northern China in December, and in the absence of censorship, Chai’s film would likely have been watched by even more Chinese internet users in 2015—and perhaps included on Baidu’s list.

8. Ou Shaokun: This 61-year-old anticorruption activist gained an online following by exposing officials’ improper personal use of government vehicles. In March, just hours after posting photos of local government cars being misused on his popular microblog account, Ou was detained in Hunan and held for five days on allegations of soliciting a prostitute. After his release, Ou claimed that he had been set up by a businessman with ties to local officials. Netizens and Ou persisted in investigating who might have been behind the attempt to discredit him, prompting new rounds of censorship. Three censorship directives were issued in 2015 in connection with his story, and a screenshot of an interview with him was the fourth most rapidly censored Weibo post. The topic does not appear on Baidu’s list.


BEYOND CHINA ‘Cyber sovereignty,’ Great Cannon, unexpected concessions

Last month’s China Media Bulletin highlighted the recent evolution of long-standing methods for insinuating Communist Party influence into foreign media, the film industry, and international cultural events, including through visa denials and financing by pro-Beijing businessmen. For this annual summary, three other trends related to the intersection between the international community and Chinese information controls deserve notice:

  • Promoting ‘cyber sovereignty’: This term first emerged at the inaugural World Internet Conference hosted in China in 2014. Throughout 2015, it was established as a core component of official Chinese jargon on internet governance policy. The concept most recently appeared in a December speech by Xi Jinping at the second World Internet Conference, hosted in Wuzhen. “Cyber sovereignty” refers to the idea that governments have a right to manage their domestic internet—and to police the content and traffic that flows across their borders—as they see fit, disregarding existing international norms of free expression and free-trade commitments. Free speech advocates worry that the prominence of the concept at the summit, which was attended by leaders of Central Asian countries and global technology firms, represents a renewed effort to gain international support for Beijing’s approach and for a state-led internet governance model more generally.

  • Deploying the ‘Great Cannon’: This term was coined by Canadian researchers to describe a cyberattack capacity that they discovered while analyzing a massive denial-of-service attack against the programmer database GitHub. There have long been examples of DDoS attacks targeting foreign-hosted websites that the Chinese government frowns upon for various reasons. But the “Great Cannon” attack was the first known instance of transnational traffic being hijacked at China’s international gateway and redirected for that purpose, as well as one of the most conclusive examples of Chinese government involvement in such attacks.

  • Conceding to international pressure: Despite an atmosphere of tight political controls, new arrests, and outward blustering, Chinese leaders made more concessions to international and domestic pressure on media and internet freedom issues in 2015 than in recent memory. Prominent journalist Gao Yu, five women’s rights activists, and attorney Pu Zhiqiang were all released from custody, though their freedom remains constrained and they never should have been detained in the first place. While French journalist Ursula Gauthier was expelled after writing about Xinjiang, New York Times journalist Chris Buckley was permitted to return to Beijing after having been forced to leave China in 2012. And although problematic provisions remain in the new antiterrorism law, proposed requirements that foreign technology companies store all data of Chinese users inside China were dropped from the final version. Such examples highlight the constant calibration that occurs as Chinese leaders weigh the costs and benefits of specific actions within their overarching policy of controlling information flows. They also suggest that in 2016, international actors should continue to use multilateral pressure to influence the individual cases of political detainees (such as human rights lawyers Wang Yu and Wang Quanzhang, and journalist Shen Hao), as well as problematic draft legislation like the Foreign NGO Management Law.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR IN 2016

More economic censorship and propaganda:As China’s economy is expected to continue slowing this year, watch for more examples of previously tolerated news on the financial system and stock market becoming politically sensitive. This increased censorship will likely be supplemented with vigorous efforts by state media and propaganda authorities to put a positive spin on emerging problems and government responses.

Verdicts for detained journalists and lawyers:Watch for news of trials and verdicts for the 20 detained journalists and netizens on CPJ’s list whose sentences are unknown or pending. Several dozen lawyers detained in 2015 on charges related to free expression will also likely be tried, and possibly sentenced to prison, this year.

Implementation of recent legislation, passage of more: Watch for use of restrictive and vague provisions in new antiterrorism and criminal laws to punish Chinese citizens for peaceful religious or political expression. Also watch for passage—or quiet demise due to international pressure—of two other pending laws that have worried civil society advocates, foreign governments, universities, and the business sector because of their potentially negative impact on academic, media, and internet freedom: a cybersecurity law and a foreign NGO management law.

‘Social credit system’ plan: On several occasions in 2015, news and commentary emerged about a Chinese government plan to establish a “social credit system” within five years; the idea first surfaced in a 2014 State Council Notice. The system would be based on the kinds of financial credit systems common around the world, but would also incorporate data about where people go, what they buy, and what they post online to rate and try to improve behavior based on government-dictated criteria. Opponents fear that the system will exploit personal information collected by commercial entities and state bodies to create a comprehensive incentive system, discouraging dissent and punishing critics. Watch for any details about blueprints for this nationwide database.

 

 

 

中国媒体快报 第111期:2016年1月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0
Xi military parade compared to Winnie the Pooh in a car

年度回顾

标题


特写:2015年中国受审查最严重的新闻话题

萨拉∙库克,东亚资深研究员,《中国媒体快报》负责人

此文的一个版本201615日发表于《外交政策》网站。

 

2015全年,中共党宣部门以及国家有关单位几乎每天向新闻机构、网站、和社交媒体管理员下达具体指令,指示他们是否报道这起或那起突发新闻、如何报道、如何处理相关评论等。自由之家最近对几十份这样的指令进行分析后发现,中国当局下令审查的主题范围远远不止于对政权的批评、异见人士活动、或长久以来的禁忌话题。

【图片:将PX照片放在此文右上角,加以下说明:2015年4月福建省漳州一家石化厂发生爆炸,消防队员正在救火。在中国当局2015年发布的21条与健康和安全有关的审查指令中,其中一条下令新闻网站低调处理这条新闻。图片来源:财新】.

尽管这些审查指令应该是机密文件,但是位于加利福尼亚州的《中国数字时代》(CDT)总有办法获得这些泄露的文件,并且以中文和英文译文公开发表。虽然我们很难在CDT范围外证实这些指令的真实性,但是这些泄露的文件经常与我们实际看到的报道和审查情况吻合,因此观察中国媒体的人认为它们一般来说是可靠的。

自由之家分析了CDT 2015年发布的所有75份这样的泄露文件。这些文件指示删除某篇文章、不派记者报道某一事件、在网站首页上排除某一话题、或关闭相关报道的评论功能等等“负面”做法。另外许多指令则指示采取一些积极做法,如只采用“标准”和“权威”信息源,或与国家喉舌新华社的通稿保持一致。

这几十份指令可能只是冰山一角;九月份一份来自中国共产党宣传部的指令标号为2015年320号。即便如此,对这些指令的分析仍然可以帮助我们窥见共产党的对不同内容的敏感性在哪里,哪些话题是中共领导人认为对他们维持权力危险最大的话题。

以下是2015年受审查最严重的新闻报道内容:

1. 健康与安全:我们分析的审查指令中有超过四分之一(75份中的21份)限制对人为事故、暴力袭击、环境污染、或食品安全的报道。比如说,四月份的一份指令说,“福建漳州PX爆炸一事不上新闻网站要闻区,” 由此审查对一家PX工厂爆炸事件的报道。近年来中国各地发生多起反对PX项目的抗议。2015年初,柴静有关雾霾的记录片《穹顶之下》播出后立刻走红、但随后遭到突然审查,有五条指令特别指示要限制这个记录片的流通和讨论。

2. 经济:指令密集的第二类内容是对中国经济、股市、或有关经济政策立法草案的报道(75份中的11份)。其中一条指令要求删除一篇题为《为何至今没有对罕见的股灾进行追责》的文章。这篇文章最初发表在新浪财经版,后在被封锁的海外中文网站转载。

3. 官员不法行为:这75份指令中有10份限制对官员不法行为的报道,包括官员海外资产、警察暴行、腐败调查中发生的死亡事件等。两起死亡事件把人们的目光引向习近平强力反腐不那么好看的一面 – 重庆前书记薄熙来的盟友死于狱中,一个举报者被不明身份的面具人打死。

4. 媒体/审查:9份指令限制对官方管控媒体或网络的讨论,如抓捕记者、封锁反制中国防火墙的工具 、或要求删除网上音乐的新规定等。以财经报道著称的商业化媒体在2015年也受到压力,指令点名要求它们删除出版的一些文章。

5. /官员的名声:8份指令限制那些会损害特定官员或党的正面形象的内容或新闻,包括九月举行的大型阅兵。5份指令禁止对中国领导人习近平不尊重或恶搞的提法。

6. 公民社会:7份指令限制对公民社会的报道,包括拘留一名反腐活跃分子的消息,以及夏天对人权律师的大抓捕。抓捕律师是中国当局加大力度打击“维权运动”的一部分,这样范围的大抓捕还是首次。

其余的指令涉及对看上去无关痛痒的官员活动、对外事务、香港、以及西藏的报道进行控制。

2014年,自由之家曾对发表与2012年11月与2014年5月间的318份审查和宣传指令进行了类似分析。尽管样品不全,但是对前后两个时期最敏感的话题进行一下比较,我们还是能看出来中共在最敏感的话题上有一些变化:

话题变化方向排位(以前的位置到现在的位置)
健康和安全#3 #1
经济#7 #2
官员不法行为#1 #3
媒体/审查#6 #4
公民社会#4 #6
对外事务#5 #8

要确定地解释这些上下变化是不可能的。但是,在这个媒体和互联网管控日益钳紧的时代,这些变化看上去既反映了某些话题敏感度的提升,如中国经济下行期间的状况,也反映了其它力量的空缺,如缺乏曝光官员不法行为的网友和记者。

2016年,中国公民在诸如环境污染、过度警察暴力、经济以及其它受审查禁令限制的话题上仍然需要获得及时、准确的信息。目前的中国看来是过去十年多以来媒体管控最严厉的一个时期, 中国的记者、网民、技术人员以及国际社会都将需要找到新的、创造性的办法来产生和传播新闻。


纸媒/ 新媒体:商业化调查报道衰落,国家出资的数字媒体增长

对中国媒体来说,2015年也许标志着一个时代的结束。直到不久前为止,相对自由的商业化纸媒还在从事力度大、影响深远的报道,这种报道同时也是一种成功的商业模式的一部分。但是政府钳紧控制、对它们进行有目标的控罪、以及纸媒在全球普遍面临的财政压力,几重因素的结合,把它们逼向了衰落。

尽管调查记者和商业化媒体十多年来不时遭遇政府的打压,2012年来更是面临更大压力。这些媒体试图在政治受限制、市场又高度竞争的情况下为自己找到空间,但是2015年的几个事件进一步挤压了这些媒体的存在和影响。

位于广东的南方传媒集团遭受了尤其严重的打击。去年一月,《南方周末》前记者方可成感叹2013年南方周末记者和其他公民对新闻审查的抗议是一个失败。《南方周末》本来是中国最有影响的自由化媒体之一以及严肃调查报道的一个先驱,但是方说,围绕南方周末新年献辞事件的抗议发生后,审查要求变得相当严苛,有经验的记者大批离开报纸,前往新辟网站工作。

去年四月,当局取消了《理财周报》的出版许可,关闭了《21世纪经济报道》网站。2014年,这两个南方传媒集团属下媒体的工作人员因敲诈指控而遭到拘留。8月份,广东当局发表了一份报告,对南方传媒集团提出了几点新要求,包括增加员工中党员的比例。9月份,这个集团的三份报纸均对在北京举行的阅兵进行了赞美的报道。阅兵是中共2015年最大的宣传盛事之一。

2015年最后一击发生在圣诞除夕,集团公司下的21世纪传媒总裁沈灏因“敲诈勒索”被判处四年徒刑。这位前《南方周末》编辑以理想主义和专业主义著称,激励了一代新闻学生。许多同仁认为对他的指控完全是编造。在这一连串政治打击下,南方传媒集团读者人数下降,这个曾经是最成功的商业化媒体集团据说现在被迫从政府接受数百万美元计的补贴。“21世纪传媒案件显示新闻在中国已经被置于死地,”程益中告诉《华盛顿邮报》说。程本人曾因为其报道而坐牢。“执政党彻底赢得了这场开始于2003的战役,”他说。

过去两年里其它商业化媒体也遭遇了类似的压力,许多解散了调查报道团队,有的甚至干脆关闭。在2015年的一个分水岭事件中,《财经》记者王晓璐因为在夏天股价狂泻时写的一篇报道而被逮捕,并且八月间在中央电视台上“公开认罪”。王晓璐的案例被广泛认为是政府在试图支撑股市的同时寻找替罪羊,以此恐吓财政记者。

中国新闻界无疑在发生着变化,2015年几个由国家补贴的数字新媒体吸引了大量读者,强化了官方表述的主导地位。最突出的一家应数“澎湃”。这家网络媒体隶属于位于上海的联合传媒集团,全部由政府资助。正如Tabitha Speelman 在最近的一篇文章中指出,澎湃是中国第一家提供手机应用来传播其内容的数字媒体机构,它的内容参差不齐,其曝光社会丑闻的报道有时遭到审查,同时又有类似喉舌宣传那样的文章,以及艺术和文化新闻。通过这样一种结合,澎湃“成功地融进了许多中国年轻人的媒体消费中。他们当中大多数人一般情况下本来既不跟踪、也不分享国家媒体常常很蹩脚的新闻报道。” 据说中国国家互联网信息办公室对澎湃的成功相当满意,在中国至少六个省市出现了模仿澎湃的新闻网站。

总体来说,2015年发生在媒体领域的事件令中国观察者感到沮丧。他们曾经以为,南方传媒集团这样的新闻机构证明高质量的新闻报道可以在中国这个世界上管制最严重的政治环境之一生存下去、甚至欣欣向荣。

几个重量级新闻机构仍然还在继续,如胡舒立的《财新》。但是政权之手紧拉着绳套,曾经在官员腐败、疫苗污染等话题上产生过既有深度、又受欢迎的新闻调查模式已经越来越没有空间,取代它的是对政府工作歌功颂德的头条和对习近平日常工作不厌其烦的报道。


纸媒/ 新媒体:羁押记者、电视认罪均达新高 

2015年12月1日,保护记者委员会(CPJ)出版了每年一度对全世界被羁押记者的统计。中国连续两年蝉联羁押记者人数最多的国家。中国去年有49名记者被羁押,是自保护记者委员会开始统计以来的最高记录,但这仍然只是因行使自由表达权而被羁押的中国公民人数的一小部分。在这49名记者中,25名在2014年被拘留,4名在2015年被拘留。71岁高龄的知名资深记者高瑜没有被包括在这个名单中。她今年4月被判处7年徒刑,但是去年11月被改判五年并在家中或医院中执行。

自由之家对这49个案例的分析有助于看到打压记者的最新趋向:

  • 47名男性,2名女性
  • 29名汉族,20名少数民族(维吾尔人、藏人、和彝族)。这与前些年相比有些变化 – 前些年被羁押记者中更大比例是少数民族。
  • 13名纸媒记者,1名广播记者,35名网络记者。这反映了向数字媒体的倾向,也反映了共产党对广播的控制比纸媒更紧,这使得广播记者当中较少出现受惩罚者。
  • 18名专业记者,28名作者、出版商、或公民记者。这个划分反映了与习近平执政前的不同。那时专业记者坐牢的几率相当低。记者保护委员会的名单中还包括了四名香港记者或出版商。在这18名专业记者中,14名因财务管理不当、腐败、或非法经营等显然是构陷罪名而入狱。
  • 9年,不包括3个无期徒刑,以及20个还没有宣判的人。
  • 在2014年以来被监禁的记者中,有10例被迫在电视上公开认罪(包括未被保护记者委员会统计的高瑜以及另一名已经被释放的记者)。而之前被捕的记者没有过这样的例子。被迫上电视认罪现在成了常事,但是在习近平上台前几乎不存在这样的现象。

除上述案例外,2015年引人注意的一个事件是对人权律师以及律所工作人员的大抓捕。他们当中许多人经常使用诸如新浪、腾讯等社交媒体发布案件细节,或者对政府政策发表看法。12月22日,北京一家法院判处著名言论自由律师浦志强三年缓刑,依据是他发表的七条讽刺政府官员、批评新疆政策的微博。他被羁押19个月后获得释放,人形消瘦,健康状况不佳,并且不能再当律师。12月14日在法院外旁观浦志强庭审的外国记者和外交人员受到推搡和骚扰;数百名中国公民也齐聚庭外声援浦志强。至少18人遭到逮捕,其中几人直到年终仍然在押。


纸媒/ 新媒体:新的法律条款将党的领导地位法律化,加重对异见的惩罚

2015年,全国人大通过了几项法律或修正案,将现行的对媒体的控制法律化,加强了对某些表达的惩罚度,要求技术公司在安全部门的调查中提供合作。7月份通过的《国家安全法》和12月通过的《反恐怖主义法》引起了外国政府、商界代表、法律专家、以及人权组织的广泛批评和关注。11月起生效的对《刑法》的一系列修正没有受到太多注意,但是包括了几项令人忧虑的条款。

这些法律常常在国家安全的名义下,在诸如防止恐怖主义、保护用户隐私等国际认可目标的名义下,在捍卫中国领土完整的名义下,保护共产党政治上的支配地位。《国家安全法》在多处明确把维护“共产党领导”、维护“中国特色的社会主义”排在首要地位,凌驾于国家安全之上。这些新的法律条款还使用模糊的语言和宽泛的定义,人们担心安全力量会使用这些条款惩罚和平表达政治或宗教意见。

人们尤其担心这些法律的几个方面会对自由表达造成负面影响:

  • 要求“加强国家安全新闻宣传和舆论引导,”而后者的范围非常宽泛,可以包括经济、文化表达和宗教。(《国家安全法》)
  • 要求所有网络基础设施和信息系统“安全可控。”(《国家安全法》)
  • 不允许记者和社交媒体使用者个人对恐怖袭击以及当局反应进行报道,包括使用官方报道以外的其它消息来源。(《反恐怖主义法》
  • 要求科技公司向当局提供技术信息,在安全部门要求时帮助解密,协助反恐案件的调查。(《反恐怖主义法》)
  • 生产或散发倡导恐怖主义或“极端主义”的印刷品和音像材料,可被判上至五年徒刑。(刑法修正案
  • 在互联网上发布危害公共安全的虚假信息和“谣言”,可被判上至七年徒刑。
  • 将“利用邪教组织破坏国家法律实施罪”法定最高刑由十五年有期徒刑提高到无期徒刑。这一指控经常用于监禁地下基督教徒和法轮功修炼者,不仅限于宗教活动,而且也包括散发未经官方许可的宗教文本、对共产党政策的批评、以及践踏人权的细节。(刑法修正案
  • 网络服务供应商失职(包括监督、审查、或保护用户数据)导致严重后果的话,可被判上至三年徒刑。(刑法修正案)

总起来看,这些法律并不表示中共控制信息的欲望有了很大变化,而是这些法律赋予安全机器更大权力,给予那些会滥用国家权威镇压异见的人更多的法律工具。透过这些法律,外界也可看到中共想象当中自己所面临的经济、政治、技术、和军事威胁。这些法律最终的作用取决于执行—这是未来一年需要观察的。


新媒体 2015年中国网络重大新闻

2015年年底,《纽约时报》根据中国最大的搜索引擎百度上的搜索数量,列出了最受中国互联网用户瞩目的十大新闻。 其它中国和外国新闻机构也发表了他们自己的年度重大新闻名单,包括最受审查的新闻。有些与百度名单平行,因为关注度高的新闻常常引来大量嘲讽评论或者网友发布的曝光照片,从而引起审查者的注意。

以下是自由之家编辑的名单。我们参考了各家媒体的名单,但也特别注意那些如果审查不那么严重的话应该产生更大影响的新闻。

1. 阅兵:9月3日在北京举行的纪念二战结束70周年的阅兵,是用户在百度搜索上查看最多的新闻。在新浪微博上,阅兵也是审查最严重的话题。根据自由之家从香港大学Weiboscope获得的数据,在20个被删贴最快的热门微博中,有6个跟阅兵相关。被删得最快一条将习近平站在敞篷车的样子与维尼熊比较,另外几个则给习近平与俄罗斯总统普京的照片上加上好笑的对话。

2. 天津爆炸:去年8月天津发生一系列爆炸,造成170人死亡。根据百度,这是搜索量居第二位的事件。官方虽然极力控制新闻报道,但是网络和传统媒体都进行了一些抵制,围绕这一重大伤亡事件的问责以及腐败等问题寻找答案。天津爆炸是2015年删贴数量居二的话题。位于加利福尼亚州的《中国数字时代》2015年最受欢迎的帖子是《北京日报》一名记者对天津爆炸的图片报道。尽管当局试图禁止记者从现场报道,但是这位记者设法进入现场并从那里发表了报道。

3. 一胎政策的终结: 10月份中国共产党宣布结束实施了几十年的计划生育一胎政策,允许所有中国家庭有两个孩子。这一话题在百度名单上高居第三。

4. 优衣库性爱视频:一对男女在北京一间优衣库试衣间做爱的手机录像野火一样传遍网络,高居百度搜索榜第四位。与此事件有关的数人时候被拘留,但是审查者删除黄色内容的速度,看来不及删除被认为有政治威胁的内容那样快。

5. 嘲笑毛泽东:著名电视主持人毕福剑在一个私人聚会上唱一首文革时代的歌、同时骂毛泽东的录像出现在网上,在百度排名中居第五位。审查者下令删除录像以及一篇敦促毕福剑道歉的“爱国”文章,但是这段录像以及网友的兴趣持续扩散。

6. 股市暴跌:夏天期间股市持续下跌带来数千亿计美元的损失以及全球股市抛售。美联社财经编辑命名中国经济放缓为去年世界第一大经济消息。考虑到这一新闻重要的政治、经济连带意义,它没有在百度搜索名单上排名更高,令人意外。网民有限的关注(或者也许是百度低调处理了这个问题)可能部分归因于共产党指示要加强积极的“经济宣传”,这个指令本身在《中国数字时报》2015年最受欢迎的帖子中排名第十。

7.. 《在穹顶下》:这部由前记者柴静制作的环境污染记录片2月28日网络发布后,很快便获得了千百万人的观看。在接下来的星期,审查当局发布了越来越限制的指控,要求控制它的传播,直到3月6日下令从所有录像播放网站删除。12月中国北方遭受了严重得犹如末日般的雾霾,如果不是审查封锁,2015年应该会有更多的中国网民观看柴静的电影,它也许会上到百度排名上。

8. 区少坤:这位61岁的反腐活跃分子因曝光官员使用公车而闻名。2015年3月,他在微博贴了当地政府车辆被私用的照片几个小时后,在湖南因“嫖妓”被拘留并被扣押五天。释放后,区少坤说他是被一个与当地官员有联系的商人设局陷害的。网民和区少坤不懈地调查到底是谁在构陷他,在网上导致新一轮的删贴审查。2015年有3条审查指令与这一事件有关,采访区少坤的一个截屏照片在最快删除排名中占第四位的微博。但是这个话题没有出现在百度排名上。​


中国之外  “网络主权”,大炮,意外的让步

上个月的《中国媒体快报》重点写到中国近来如何在境外媒体、电影业、以及国际文化活动中使用长久以来使用的办法发挥影响,包括拒发签证,为亲北京的商人提供财政支持等。在本期的年度总结中,我们在涉及国际社会与中国政府信息控制交界点上指出另外三个值得注意的趋势:

  • 提倡网络主权这个提法首次出现在2014年在中国举行的首届世界互联网大会期间。2015年全年,这个概念成为中国政府有关互联网治理政策话语中一个核心成分。这个概念也出现在最近在乌镇举行的第二届世界互联网大会上习近平的发言中。“网络主权”指的是各国政府有权管理他们的国内网络,约束流经其境内的内容和交通,而不必遵守现存的自由表达国际惯例以及自由贸易承诺。言论自由倡导者担心,这个概念在会议中的核心地位反映了北京正在努力为它的做法以及一种由国家领导的互联网治理模式寻求国际支持。参加这次会议的有中亚国家领导人以及全球技术公司。
  • 部署大炮这个词语是加拿大研究人员创造的,用以描述他们在分析对程序员数据库GitHub进行的一次大规模阻断服务时所发现的一种网络攻击能力。通过阻断服务攻击中国政府因为这样或那样的原因而不喜欢的网站,这样的例子有很多。但是“大炮”在中国的国际门户拦截并绑架越洋交通,将其送往攻击目标。这是第一例此类攻击,也是中国政府参与此类攻击最无可置疑的例子之一。
  • 在国际压力前让步:尽管在整体气氛上,中国加紧了政治控制,逮捕了更多人,对外言辞更加强硬,但是在国际和国内压力下,中国领导人这一年在媒体和互联网自由的问题上做出了比以往更多的让步。高瑜、女权五姐妹、浦志强律师都获得释放,虽然他们的自由仍然受到限制,而他们也压根就不应该受到羁押。法国记者Ursula Gauthier(高洁)因为其新疆报道而被迫离开中国,但是《纽约时报》记者Chris Buckley(储百亮)在被迫于2012年离开后现被允许返回中国。虽然新的《反恐怖主义法》内有许多有问题的条款,但是在它最终通过的版本中,这个法律不再要求外国科技公司必须将所有中国用户的数据存在中国。这些例子表明,中国领导人总体上的政策虽然是控制信息流动,但是他们也在不停地计算一些具体行为的成本和好处。这些例子还告诉我们,2016年,国际相关方应该继续运用多边压力影响政治犯个案(如人权律师王宇和王全璋,记者沈灏等)以及问题很大的法律草案,如境外非政府组织管理法。

未来看点

更多对经济新闻的审查,更多宣传:人们普遍预期中国经济今年将会进一步放缓,对财经体系和股市的一些报道,原来可以容忍的,现在变成了政治敏感新闻。与钳紧的审查相伴而来的,很可能是国家媒体和宣传部门更着力地对出现的一些问题和政府应对进行正面报道。

判处被羁押的记者和律师:注意保护记者委员会名单上20名等待判决或审判的在押记者和公民的审判消息和判决。2015年间被羁押的几十名律师今年很可能会遭到审判并被判处徒刑。

新法的执行、更多法律的通过:注意观察当局如何使用新通过的反恐法以及刑法中限制性和模糊的条款,惩罚和平进行宗教或政治表达的公民。注意中国当局是否会通过(或在国际压力下悄悄放弃)两项法律:《网络安全法》以及《境外非政府组织管理法》。这两项法律因其对学术界、媒体以及互联网自由可能带来的负面影响而令公民社会倡导者、外国政府、大学、以及商界深感忧虑。

实施社会信用系统的计划:2015年有几则关于中国政府计划在五年内建立一个“社会信用系统”的报道。这个提法最早出现在2014年的一个国务院通知里。这个系统仿效国际常见的财政信用系统,但是将包括公民去哪里、买什么、以及在网上说什么的数据信息,以便根据政府制定的标准来评鉴和试图改进人们的行为。反对者担心这个系统会利用商业机构和国家机构搜集的个人信息来建立一个全面的奖惩系统,压制异见,惩罚批评者。注意观察这个全国数据库的蓝图细节。

中國媒體快報 第111期:2016年1月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0

年度回顧

標題


特寫:2015年中國受審查最嚴重的新聞話題

薩拉∙庫克,東亞資深研究員,《中國媒體快報》負責人

此文的一個版本201615日發表於《外交政策》網站。

【圖片: 將PX照片放在此文右上角,加以下說明: 2015年4月福建省漳州一家石化廠發生爆炸,消防隊員正在救火。在中國當局2015年發佈的21條與健康和安全有關的審查指令中,其中一條下令新聞網站低調處理這條新聞。 圖片來源:財新】.

2015全年,中共党宣部門以及國家有關單位幾乎每天向新聞機構、網站、和社交媒體管理員下達具體指令,指示他們是否報導這起或那起突發新聞、如何報導、如何處理相關評論等。自由之家最近對幾十份這樣的指令進行分析後發現,中國當局下令審查的主題範圍遠遠不止于對政權的批評、異見人士活動、或長久以來的禁忌話題。

儘管這些審查指令應該是機密文件,但是位於加利福尼亞州的《中國數字時代》(CDT)總有辦法獲得這些洩露的文件,並且以中文和英文譯文公開發表。 雖然我們很難在CDT範圍外證實這些指令的真實性,但是這些洩露的文件經常與我們實際看到的報導和審查情況吻合,因此觀察中國媒體的人認為它們一般來說是可靠的。

自由之家分析了CDT 2015年發佈的所有75份這樣的洩露文件。 這些文件指示刪除某篇文章、不派記者報導某一事件、在網站首頁上排除某一話題、或關閉相關報導的評論功能等等「負面」做法。 另外許多指令則指示採取一些積極做法,如只採用「標準」和「權威」資訊源,或與國家喉舌新華社的通稿保持一致。

這幾十份指令可能只是冰山一角;九月份一份來自中國共產黨宣傳部的指令標號為2015年320號。 即便如此,對這些指令的分析仍然可以幫助我們窺見哪些話題對共產黨來說是敏感話題,哪些話題是中共領導人認為對他們維護權力危險最大的話題。

以下是2015年受審查最嚴重的內容:

1. 健康與安全: 我們分析的審查指令中有超過四分之一 (75份中的21份) 限制對人為事故、暴力襲擊、環境污染、或食品安全的報導。四月份的一份指令說,“福建漳州PX爆炸一事不上新聞網站要聞區”,由此審查對一家PX工廠爆炸事件的報導。近年來中國各地發生多起反對PX專案的抗議。2015年初,柴靜有關霧霾的記錄片《穹頂之下》播出後立刻走紅網絡、但隨後遭到突然審查,有五條指令特別指示要限制這個記錄片的流通和討論。

2.經濟:指令密集的第二類內容是對中國經濟、股市、或有關經濟政策立法草案的報導 (75份中的11份)。其中一條指令要求刪除一篇題為《為何至今沒有對罕見的股災進行追責》的文章。這篇文章最初發表在新浪財經版,後在被封鎖的海外中文網站轉載。

3.官員不法行為:這75份指令中有10份限制對官員不法行為的報導,包括官員海外資產、警察暴行、腐敗調查中發生的死亡事件等。兩起死亡事件把人們的目光引向習近平強力反腐不那麼好看的一面 — — 重慶前書記薄熙來的盟友死于獄中;一個舉報者被不明身份的面具人打死。

4.媒體 / 審查:9份指令限制對官方管控媒體或網路的討論,如抓捕記者、封鎖反制中國防火牆的工具、或要求刪除網上音樂的新規定等。以財經報導著稱的商業化媒體在2015年也受到壓力,指令點名要求它們刪除出版的一些文章。

5. / 官員的名聲:8份指令限制那些會損害特定官員或党的正面形象的內容或新聞,包括九月舉行的大型閱兵。5份指令禁止對中國領導人習近平不尊重或惡搞的提法。

6.公民社會:7份指令限制對公民社會的報導,包括拘留一名反腐活躍分子的消息、以及夏天對人權律師的大範圍抓捕。抓捕律師是中國當局加大力度打擊“維權運動”的一部分,但是這樣範圍的大抓捕還是首次。

其餘的指令涉及對看上去無關痛癢的官員活動、對外事務、香港、以及西藏的報導進行控制。

2014年自由之家曾對發表於2012年11月與2014年5月間的318份審查和宣傳指令進行了類似分析。儘管樣品不全,但是對前後兩個時期最敏感的話題進行一下比較,我們還是能看出來中共在最敏感的話題上有一些變化:

話題變化方向排序(以前的位置與現在的位置)
健康與安全#3 #1
經濟#7 #2
官員不法行為#1 #3
媒體/審查#6 #4
公民社會#4 #6
對外事務#5 #8

要確定地解釋這些上下變化是不可能的。但是, 在這個媒體和互聯網管控日益鉗緊的時代,這些變化看上去既反映了某些話題敏感度的提升,如中國經濟下行期間的狀況,也反映了其它力量的空缺,如缺乏曝光官員不法行為的網友和記者。

2016年中國公民在諸如環境污染、過度員警暴力、經濟以及其它受審查禁令限制的話題上仍然需要獲得及時、準確的資訊。目前的中國看來是過去十年多以來媒體管控最嚴厲的一個時期,中國的記者、網民、技術人員以及國際社會都將需要找到新的、創造性的辦法來產生和傳播新聞。


紙媒 / 新媒體 商業化調查報導衰落,國家出資的數位媒體增長

對中國媒體來說,2015年也許標誌著一個時代的結束。 直到不久前為止,相對自由的商業化紙媒還在從事力度大、影響深遠的報導,這種報導同時也是一種成功的商業模式的一部分。 但是政府鉗緊控制、對它們進行有目標的控罪、以及紙媒在全球普遍面臨的財政壓力,幾重因素的結合,把它們逼向了衰落。

儘管調查記者和商業化媒體十多年來不時遭遇政府的打壓,2012年來更是面臨更大壓力。 這些媒體試圖在政治受限制、市場又高度競爭的情況下為自己找到空間,但是2015年的幾個事件進一步擠壓了這些媒體的存在和影響。

位於廣東的南方傳媒集團遭受了尤其嚴重的打擊。 去年一月,《南方週末》前記者方可成感歎2013年南方週末記者和其他公民對新聞審查的抗議是一個失敗。 《南方週末》本來是中國最有影響的自由化媒體之一以及嚴肅調查報導的一個先驅,但是方說,圍繞南方週末新年獻辭事件的抗議發生後,審查要求變得相當嚴苛,有經驗的記者大批離開報紙,前往新辟網站工作。

去年四月,當局取消了《理財週報》的出版許可,關閉了《21世紀經濟報導》網站。 2014年,這兩個南方傳媒集團屬下媒體的工作人員因敲詐指控而遭到拘留。 8月份,廣東當局發表了一份報告,對南方傳媒集團提出了幾點新要求,包括增加員工中黨員的比例。 9月份,這個集團的三份報紙均對在北京舉行的閱兵進行了讚美的報導。 閱兵是中共2015年最大的宣傳盛事之一。

2015年最後一擊發生在聖誕除夕,集團公司下的21世紀傳媒總裁沈灝因"敲詐勒索"被判處四年徒刑。這位前《南方週末》編輯以理想主義和專業主義著稱激勵了一代新聞學生。許多同仁認為對他的指控完全是編造。在這一連串政治打擊下,南方傳媒集團讀者人數下降這個曾經是最成功的商業化媒體集團據說現在被迫從政府接受數百萬美元計的補貼。“21世紀傳媒案件顯示新聞在中國已經被置於死地",程益中告訴《華盛頓郵報》說。程本人曾因為其報導而坐牢。"執政黨徹底贏得了這場開始于2003的戰役",他說。

過去兩年裡其它商業化媒體也遭遇了類似的壓力,許多解散了調查報導團隊,有的甚至乾脆關閉。 在2015年的一個分水嶺事件中,《財經》記者王曉璐因為在夏天股價狂瀉時寫的一篇報導而被逮捕,並且八月間在中央電視臺上「公開認罪」。 王曉璐的案例被廣泛認為是政府在試圖支撐股市的同時尋找替罪羊,以此恐嚇財政記者。

中國新聞界無疑在發生著變化,2015年幾個由國家補貼的數位新媒體吸引了大量讀者,強化了官方表述的主導地位。 最突出的一家應數「澎湃」。 這家網路媒體隸屬于位於上海的聯合傳媒集團,全部由政府資助。 正如Tabitha Speelman 在最近的一篇文章中指出,澎湃是中國第一家提供手機應用來傳播其內容的數位媒體機構,它的內容參差不齊,其曝光社會醜聞的報導有時遭到審查,同時又有類似喉舌宣傳那樣的文章,以及藝術和文化新聞。 通過這樣一種結合,澎湃「成功地融進了許多中國年輕人的媒體消費中。 他們當中大多數人一般情況下本來既不跟蹤、也不分享國家媒體常常很蹩腳的新聞報導。 」 據說中國國家互聯網資訊辦公室對澎湃的成功相當滿意,在中國至少六個省市出現了模仿澎湃的新聞網站。

總體來說,2015年發生在媒體領域的事件令中國觀察者感到沮喪。 他們曾經以為,南方傳媒集團這樣的新聞機構證明高品質的新聞報導可以在中國這個世界上管制最嚴重的政治環境之一生存下去、甚至欣欣向榮。

幾個重量級新聞機構仍然還在繼續,如胡舒立的《財新》。 但是政權之手緊拉著繩套,曾經在官員腐敗、疫苗污染等話題上產生過既有深度、又受歡迎的新聞調查模式已經越來越沒有空間,取代它的是對政府工作歌功頌德的頭條和對習近平日常工作不厭其煩的報導。


紙媒 / 新媒體 羈押記者、電視認罪均達新高

2015年12月1日,保護記者委員會 (CPJ) 出版了每年一度對全世界被羈押記者的統計。中國連續兩年蟬聯羈押記者人數最多的國家。中國去年有49名記者被羈押,是自保護記者委員會開始統計以來的最高記錄但這仍然只是因行使自由表達權而被羈押的中國公民人數的一小部分。在這49名記者中,25名在2014年被拘留 4名在2015年被拘留。71歲高齡的知名資深記者高瑜沒有被包括在這個名單中。她今年4月被判處7年徒刑但是去年11月被改判五年並在家中或醫院中執行。

自由之家對這49個案例的分析有助於看到打壓記者的最新趨向:

  • 性別47名男性,2名女性
  • 民族:29名漢族,20名少數民族(維吾爾人、藏人、和彝族)。 這與前些年相比有些變化 – 前些年被羈押記者中更大比例是少數民族。
  • 媒體:13名紙媒記者,1名廣播記者,35名網路記者。 這反映了向數位媒體的傾向,也反映了共產黨對廣播的控制比紙媒更緊,這使得廣播記者當中較少出現受懲罰者。
  • 職業:18名專業記者,28名作者、出版商、或公民記者。 這個劃分反映了與習近平執政前的不同。 那時專業記者坐牢的幾率相當低。 記者保護委員會的名單中還包括了四名香港記者或出版商。 在這18名專業記者中,14名因財務管理不當、腐敗、或非法經營等顯然是構陷罪名而入獄。
  • 平均刑期: 9年,不包括3個無期徒刑,以及20個還沒有宣判的人。
  • 電視公開認罪:在2014年以來被監禁的記者中,有10例被迫在電視上公開認罪(包括未被保護記者委員會統計的高瑜以及另一名已經被釋放的記者)。 而之前被捕的記者沒有過這樣的例子。 被迫上電視認罪現在成了常事,但是在習近平上臺前幾乎不存在這樣的現象

除上述案例外,2015年引人注意的一個事件是對人權律師以及律所工作人員的大抓捕。 他們當中許多人經常使用諸如新浪、騰訊等社交媒體發佈案件細節,或者對政府政策發表看法。 12月22日,北京一家法院判處著名言論自由律師浦志強三年緩刑,依據是他發表的七條諷刺政府官員、批評新疆政策的微博。 他被羈押19個月後獲得釋放,人形消瘦,健康欠佳,並且不能再當律師。 12月14日在法院外旁觀浦志強庭審的外國記者和外交人員受到推搡和騷擾;數百名中國公民也齊聚庭外聲援浦志強。 至少18人遭到逮捕,其中幾人直到年終仍然在押。


紙媒 / 新媒體 新的法律條款將党的領導地位法律化,加重對異見的懲罰

2015年,全國人大通過了幾項法律或修正案,將現行對媒體的控制法律化,加強了對某些表達的懲罰度,要求技術公司在安全部門的調查中提供合作。7月份通過的《國家安全法》和12月通過的《反恐怖主義法》引起了外國政府、商界代表、法律專家、以及人權組織的廣泛批評和關注。11月起生效的對《刑法》的一系列修正沒有受到太多注意,但是包括了幾項令人憂慮的條款。

這些法律常常在國家安全的名義下,在諸如防止恐怖主義、保護使用者隱私等國際認可目標的名義下,在捍衛中國領土完整的名義下,保護共產黨政治上的支配地位。 《國家安全法》在多處明確把維護「共產黨領導」、維護「中國特色的社會主義」排在首要地位,淩駕于國家安全之上。 這些新的法律條款還使用模糊的語言和寬泛的定義,人們擔心安全力量會使用這些條款懲罰和平表達政治或宗教意見。

人們尤其擔心這些法律的幾個方面會對自由表達造成負面影響:

  • 要求「加強國家安全新聞宣傳和輿論引導」,而後者的範圍非常寬泛,可以包括經濟、文化表達和宗教。 (《國家安全法》)
  • 要求所有網路基礎設施和資訊系統「安全可控。 」(《國家安全法》)
  • 不允許記者和社交媒體消費者個人對恐怖襲擊以及當局反應進行報導,包括使用官方報導以外的其它消息來源。(《反恐怖主義法》
  • 要求科技公司向當局提供技術資訊,在安全部門要求時説明解密,協助反恐案件的調查。 (《反恐怖主義法》)
  • 生產或散發宣導恐怖主義或「極端主義」的印刷品和音像材料,可被判上至五年徒刑。(刑法修正案
  • 在互聯網上發佈危害公共安全的虛假資訊和「謠言」,可被判上至七年徒刑。
  • 將「利用邪教組織破壞國家法律實施罪」法定最高刑由十五年有期徒刑提高到無期徒刑。 這一指控經常用於監禁地下基督教徒和法輪功修煉者,不僅限於宗教活動,而且也包括散發未經官方許可的宗教文本、對共產黨政策的批評、以及踐踏人權的細節。(刑法修正案
  • 網路服務供應商失職(包括監督、審查、或保護使用者資料)導致嚴重後果的話,可被判上至三年徒刑。 (刑法修正案)

總起來看,這些法律並不表示中共控制資訊的欲望有了很大變化,而是這些法律賦予安全機器更大權力,給予那些會濫用國家權威鎮壓異見的人更多的法律工具。透過這些法律,外界也可看到中共想像當中自己所面臨的經濟、政治、技術、和軍事威脅。這些法律最終的作用取決於執行—這是未來一年需要觀察的。


新媒體 2015年中國網路重大新聞

2015年年底,《紐約時報》根據中國最大的搜尋引擎百度上的搜索數量列出了最受中國互聯網使用者矚目的十大新聞。其它中國和外國新聞機構也發表了他們自己的年度重大新聞名單包括最受審查的新聞。有些與百度名單平行,因為關注度高的新聞常常引來大量嘲諷評論、或者網友發佈的曝光照片,從而引起審查者的注意。

以下是自由之家編輯的名單。 我們參考了各家媒體的名單,但也特別注意那些如果審查不那麼嚴重的話應該產生更大影響的新聞。

1. 閱兵:9月3日在北京舉行的紀念二戰結束70周年的閱兵,是用戶在百度搜索上查看最多的新聞。在新浪微博上,閱兵也是審查最嚴重的話題。根據自由之家從香港大學Weiboscope獲得的資料,在20個被刪貼最快的熱門微博中,有6個跟閱兵相關。被刪得最快一條將習近平站在敞篷車的樣子與維尼熊比較,另外幾個則給習近平與俄羅斯總統普京的照片上加上好笑的對話。

2. 天津爆炸:去年8月天津發生一系列爆炸,造成170人死亡。根據百度,這是搜索量居第二位的事件。官方雖然極力控制新聞報導,但是網路和傳統媒體都進行了一些抵制,圍繞這一重大傷亡事件的問責以及腐敗等問題尋找答案。天津爆炸是2015年刪貼數量居二的話題。位於加利福尼亞州的《中國數字時代》2015年最受歡迎的帖子是《北京日報》一名記者對天津爆炸的圖片報導。儘管當局試圖禁止記者從現場報導,但是這位記者設法進入現場並從那裡發表了報導。

3. 一胎政策的終結: 10月份中國共產黨宣佈結束實施了幾十年的計劃生育一胎政策,允許所有中國家庭有兩個孩子。這一話題在百度名單上高居第三。

4. 優衣庫性愛視頻:一對男女在北京一間優衣庫試衣間做愛的手機錄影野火一樣傳遍網路,高居百度搜索榜第四位。與此事件有關的數人被拘留,但是審查者刪除黃色內容的速度,看來不及刪除被認為有政治威脅的內容那樣快。 

5. 嘲笑毛澤東:著名電視主持人畢福劍在一個私人聚會上唱一首文革時代的歌、同時罵毛澤東的錄影出現在網上,在百度排名中居第五位。 審查者下令刪除錄影以及一篇敦促畢福劍道歉的「愛國」文章,但是這段錄影以及網友的興趣持續擴散。

6. 股市暴跌:夏天期間股市持續下跌帶來數千億計美元的損失以及全球股市拋售。美聯社財經編輯命名中國經濟放緩為去年世界第一大經濟消息。考慮到這一新聞重要的政治、經濟連帶意義,它沒有在百度搜索名單上排名更高,令人意外。網民有限的關注 (或者也許是百度低調處理了這個問題) 可能部分歸因於共產黨指示要加強積極的「經濟宣傳」,這個指令本身在《中國數字時報》2015年最受歡迎的帖子中排名第十。

7. “《在穹頂下》”:這部由前記者柴靜製作的環境污染記錄片2月28日網路發佈後,很快便獲得了千百萬人的觀看。在接下來的星期,審查當局發佈了越來越限制的指令,要求控制它的傳播,直到3月6日下令從所有錄影播放網站刪除。12月中國北方遭受了嚴重得猶如末日般的霧霾,如果不是審查封鎖,2015年應該會有更多的中國網民觀看柴靜的電影,它也許會上到百度排名上。

8. 區少坤:這位61歲的反腐活躍分子因曝光官員使用公車而聞名。2015年3月,他在微博貼了當地政府車輛被私用的照片幾個小時後,在湖南因「嫖妓」被拘留並被扣押五天。 釋放後,區少坤說他是被一個與當地官員有聯繫的商人設局陷害的。網民和區少坤不懈地調查到底是誰在構陷他,在網上導致新一輪的刪貼審查。2015年有3條審查指令與這一事件有關,採訪區少坤的一個截屏照片在最快刪除排名中占第四位的微博。但是這個話題沒有出現在百度排名上。


中國之外 「網路主權」,大炮,意外的讓步 

上個月的《中國媒體快報》重點寫到中國近來如何在境外媒體、電影業、以及國際文化活動中使用長久以來使用的辦法發揮影響,包括拒發簽證,為親北京的商人提供財政支援等。在本期的年度總結中,我們在涉及國際社會與中國政府資訊控制交界點上指出另外三個值得注意的趨勢:

  • 提倡「網路主權」:這個提法首次出現在2014年在中國舉行的首屆世界互聯網大會期間。2015年全年,這個概念成為中國政府有關互聯網治理政策話語中一個核心成分。這個概念也出現在最近在烏鎮舉行的第二屆世界互聯網大會上習近平的發言中。 「網路主權」指的是各國政府有權管理他們的國內網路,約束流經其境內的內容和交通,而不必遵守現存的自由表達國際慣例以及自由貿易承諾。言論自由倡導者擔心,這個概念在會議中的核心地位反映了北京正在努力為它的做法以及一種由國家領導的互聯網治理模式尋求國際支援。參加這次會議的有中亞國家領導人以及全球技術公司。
  • 部署「大炮」:這個詞語是加拿大研究人員創造的,用以描述他們在分析對程式師資料庫GitHub進行的一次大規模阻斷服務時所發現的一種網路攻擊能力。通過阻斷服務攻擊中國政府因為這樣或那樣的原因而不喜歡的網站,這樣的例子有很多。但是「大炮」在中國的國際門戶攔截並綁架越洋交通,將其送往攻擊目標。這是第一例此類攻擊,也是中國政府參與此類攻擊最無可置疑的例子之一。
  • 在國際壓力前讓步:儘管在整體氣氛上,中國加緊了政治控制,逮捕了更多人,對外言辭更加強硬,但是在國際和國內壓力下,中國領導人這一年在媒體和互聯網自由的問題上做出了比以往更多的讓步。 高瑜、女權五姐妹、浦志強律師都獲得釋放,雖然他們的自由仍然受到限制,而他們也壓根就不應該受到羈押。法國記者Ursula Gauthier(高潔)因為其新疆報導而被迫離開中國,但是《紐約時報》記者Chris Buckley(儲百亮)在被迫于2012年離開後現被允許返回中國。雖然新的《反恐怖主義法》內有許多有問題的條款,但是在它最終通過的版本中,這個法律不再要求外國科技公司必須將所有中國使用者的資料存在中國。這些例子表明,中國領導人總體上的政策雖然是控制資訊流動,但是他們也在不停地計算一些具體行為的成本和好處。這些例子還告訴我們,2016年,國際相關方應該繼續運用多邊壓力影響政治犯個案(如人權律師王宇和王全璋,記者沈灝等)以及問題很大的法律草案,如境外非政府組織管理法。

未來看點

更多對經濟新聞的審查,更多宣傳:人們普遍預期中國經濟今年將會進一步放緩,對財經體系和股市的一些報導,原來可以容忍的,現在變成了政治敏感新聞。與鉗緊的審查相伴而來的,很可能是國家媒體和宣傳部門更著力地對出現的一些問題和政府應對進行正面報導。

判處被羈押的記者和律師:注意保護記者委員會名單上20名等待判決或審判的在押記者和公民的審判消息和判決。2015年間被羈押的幾十名律師今年很可能會遭到審判並被判處徒刑。

新法的執行、更多法律的通過:注意觀察當局如何使用新通過的反恐法以及刑法中限制性和模糊的條款,懲罰和平進行宗教或政治表達的公民。注意中國當局是否會通過(或在國際壓力下悄悄放棄)兩項法律:《網絡安全法》以及《境外非政府組織管理法》。這兩項法律因其對學術界、媒體以及互聯網自由可能帶來的負面影響而令公民社會倡導者、外國政府、大學、以及商界深感憂慮。

實施「社會信用系統」的計畫:2015年有幾則關於中國政府計畫在五年內建立一個「社會信用系統」的報導。這個提法最早出現在2014年的一個國務院通知里。這個系統仿效國際常見的財政信用系統,但是將包括公民去哪裡、買什麼、以及在網上說什麼的資料資訊,以便根據政府制定的標準來評鑒和試圖改進人們的行為。反對者擔心這個系統會利用商業機構和國家機構搜集的個人資訊來建立一個全面的獎懲系統,壓制異見,懲罰批評者。注意觀察這個全國資料庫的藍圖細節。

 


China Media Bulletin Issue No. 112: February 2016

$
0
0
taiwan election bunny

HEADLINES: 


FEATURE: For Families of Political Prisoners, a Shadow Hangs over Chinese New Year

by Sarah Cook

A version of this article was published by the Wall Street Journal Asia on February 4, 2016.

During the Lunar New Year that begins next week—the biggest holiday of the Chinese calendar—over a billion people will gather with relatives to enjoy dumplings, lion dances, and sweet red-bean soup. But in recent weeks, as the authorities announced a series of especially harsh charges and sentences against more than a dozen lawyers and activists, the families of some of China’s leading human rights defenders came to realize that they would be spending this New Year—and likely many future holidays—without their loved ones.

Beyond the personal tragedies they entail, the charges and sentences represent a further escalation in the Communist Party’s efforts under President Xi Jinping to criminalize and punish not only calls for outright political change, but also common forms of legal and internet activism aimed at ensuring fairer enforcement of China’s laws.

Starting on January 9, the six-month legal limit for “residential surveillance in a police-designated location” (a form of detention without formal charges) ended for those detained in a government crackdown launched in July 2015. Within days, the families of six lawyers, paralegals, and administrative assistants received notice that their husbands, mothers, sons, and daughters face charges of “subversion”—a grave political crime that can carry a sentence of life in prison.

Four others were charged with “inciting subversion,” a lesser offense that can draw a 15-year sentence and is routinely used to punish acts like posting criticism of the government online. The families of at least 17 detainees received no news and have been left to imagine what the authorities have in store.

Relatives, friends, colleagues, and foreign observers expressed shock and dismay at the unusually severe charges, the likelihood of long prison sentences, and the implications for human rights, rule of law, and free expression in China. You Minglei, the husband of 24-year-old paralegal Zhao Wei, who has not seen his wife since she was detained last summer, simply said, “That is too big a charge to put on such a little girl.”

Less than a week later, on January 15, a Han Chinese activist from Xinjiang was sentenced to a whopping 19 years in prison. Zhang Haitao was charged with “inciting subversion of state power” and “illegally supplying intelligence abroad.” In addition to criticizing government policies in online articles, he had given interviews to U.S.-based radio stations, relaying observations of events in a restive region that is mostly off limits to foreign journalists. Zhang’s wife will now be raising their one-month-old son without his father.

The latest blow came on January 29. A Guangzhou court released the verdict for three men—a lawyer, a writer, and a teacher—who had been involved in human rights and prodemocracy activities over the past decade. Tang Jingling, Yuan Chaoyang, and Wang Qingying were sentenced to five, three and a half, and two and a half years in prison, respectively, after already spending 20 months in custody.

These families are among tens of thousands—and maybe more—that have been forcibly separated from loved ones accused of political or religious “crimes.”

The January cases also highlight two important aspects of the party’s authoritarian tactics. First, the regime is reviving its use of crimes like “subversion” to punish activists after a shift to less overtly political charges in the first years of Xi’s leadership. Second, authorities are extensively using Article 73 of the Criminal Procedure Law to hold activists in incommunicado “residential surveillance” for six months, realizing fears that rights groups expressed when the provision was adopted in 2012. These trends give some indication of how newer legal restrictions enacted in 2015 could be used to punish peaceful dissent and activism.

But even at such a dark time, many of these remarkable individuals and their families remain committed to the cause of freedom and optimistic about China’s future.

“Dear Father and Mother … no matter how horrible the environment is, you must hang on and live,” wrote Wang Quanzhang, one of the lawyers charged with “subversion,” in a letter he left to be shared should he be detained. “Wait for the day when the clouds will disperse and the sun will come out.”

In the same spirit, when the Year of the Monkey begins on February 8, friends and distant supporters can express solidarity by sending messages, care packages—and even tweets—for the families of China’s human rights defenders (try #HappyCNY to #ChineseHRD).

Even such small gestures can be meaningful, showing that their plight, their loved ones, and the worthwhile cause for which they are sacrificing have not been forgotten.

Sarah Cook is a Senior Research Analyst for East Asia at Freedom House and director of its China Media Bulletin.


PRINT / NEW MEDIA: Chinese media struggle to cover historic Taiwan elections

Although Taiwanese politics and elections are always sensitive topics in China, the presidential and parliamentary balloting held on January 16 reportedly provoked more media restrictions and warnings than usual. This may have had to do with the outcome. As expected, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) emerged victorious, defeating the more pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) and establishing two historic milestones for Taiwan’s democracy: its first female president and the first non-KMT legislative majority.

Coverage online and in print media was much more muted than in 2012, when the KMT won the elections, writes Yaqiu Wang of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Whereas major Chinese web portals offered specialized online features in 2012, this year there were only a handful of updates from the official Xinhua news agency, and the Sina Weibo microblogging service temporarily censored searches containing the term “Taiwan.” In newspapers, front-page coverage in 2012 gave way to brief reports buried on the inner pages in 2016.

The change reflects both specific restrictions surrounding the elections and a generally more tightly controlled media and internet environment compared with four years ago. The Cyberspace Administration of China reportedly barred publications and websites from sending reporters to Taiwan and prohibited live updates. News outlets that sent journalists anyway kept their coverage low-profile and relegated live updates to mobile applications rather than website homepages, though this too was not without risk. One media consultant who used Tencent’s WeChat app to provide such updates to 50,000 followers via the public account feature reported on January 18 that his account had been permanently shuttered.

The election coverage also highlighted some of the contortions Chinese media must go through to avoid running afoul of Beijing’s “one China” policy. Euphemisms like “leader’s election” were employed to avoid the term “president,” and television broadcasts blurred images of the Taiwanese flag and other symbols of sovereignty in their footage.

State-media coverage focused on a number of themes:

  • Warning president-elect Tsai Ing-wen not to push for formal independence for Taiwan lest she “poison” cross-strait relations and hit a “dead end,” rendering her efforts to resolve socioeconomic problems “as useless as looking for fish in a tree.” Still, references to Tsai were not as vitriolic as past portrayals of the DPP’s last president, Chen Shui-bian.
  • Downplaying the role that the KMT’s pro-China policies played in its defeat at the polls. State-media commentaries instead stressed explanations including KMT infighting, rising unemployment, and social inequality.
  • Emphasizing the stranger sides of Taiwanese politics to make democracy seem less appealing, for example by featuring photographs of candidates dressed up as dogs or traditional gods to attract voter attention. Chinese state media also reported that many Taiwanese suffer from “election syndrome,” a supposed obsession with politics that can lead to insomnia, headaches, and other ailments.

In a repeat of a November incident, tens of thousands of Chinese netizens posted “patriotic” and sometimes hostile comments on Tsai’s Facebook pages and the websites of 10 Taiwanese and Hong Kong media outlets, apparently overcoming the so-called Great Firewall to bypass Chinese authorities’ blocks on those sites. The campaign was organized via Baidu Tieba, a popular message board. The degree of official backing was unclear, and on January 22, censorship authorities reportedly issued a directive attempting to rein in media coverage of the comments and, not surprisingly, “prevent the spread of ‘scaling the wall’ and other harmful technical information.”

----------------------------------------------

BROADCAST MEDIA: Swedish NGO worker, Taiwanese pop star appear in video ‘apologies’

Since Xi Jinping became head of the Chinese Communist Party in November 2012, a crackdown on dissent has been accompanied by the revival of a tactic long associated with the Mao Zedong era: televised confessions and “self-criticisms.” Victims of the practice are typically paraded on state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV), sometimes in prison garb, and shown repenting for an alleged “crime” long before they have been tried, or even charged. The confessions have come under fierce international criticism for undermining the rule of law, and they have even generated resentment among some professional staff at CCTV, who dislike seeing their station used as a weapon against the party’s perceived enemies. Since 2012, a long list of Chinese officials, lawyers, and internet celebrities have appeared in such broadcasts, and over the past two years alone, at least 10 journalists were subjected to the tactic. These Chinese citizens have been joined by a small number of foreign nationals.

Nevertheless, when Peter Dahlin, a Swedish citizen who cofounded an organization providing assistance to Chinese lawyers, appeared on CCTV on January 19 to admit to so-called crimes, many observers in China and abroad were caught off guard, as he was the first foreign worker at a nongovernmental organization to face such mistreatment. Dahlin had been detained two weeks earlier and was accused of running an “illegal organization” and “encouraging the masses to oppose the government.” He is seen in the video apologizing for hurting “the feelings of the Chinese people” and supporting specifically named Chinese citizens—including Wang Quanzhang—who have themselves been detained and face serious politically motivated charges.

Following international pressure, Dahlin was released on January 25 and deported. Nevertheless, the incident sent a chill through civil society, marking a new extreme in the regime’s efforts to tar the reputation of China’s “rights defense movement” and cut local activists off from international support. On January 21, Reporters without Borders called for the European Union to impose sanctions on officials from Chinese state media, pointing to a similar action in 2013 after confessions aired in Iran were deemed to violate the right to a fair trial.

Separately, on January 15, a more commercially motivated form of video self-criticism made international headlines when Chou Tzuyu, a 16-year-old Taiwanese member of Korean pop group TWICE, released a video on YouTube to apologize for upsetting Chinese nationals by waving a small Taiwanese flag during a television show. In the video, she acknowledges that there is only “one China,” says she will suspend her China activities to reflect on her actions, and bows multiple times before the camera. The band’s management company, JYP Entertainment, reportedly encouraged her to make the video after a pro-China Taiwanese entertainer criticized her for pro-independence views, prompting Chinese netizens to call for a boycott of the group. Some observers argued that the video, released the day before Taiwan’s elections, galvanized opposition voters who were outraged at the apparent bullying of a teenage girl, helping the opposition Democratic Progressive Party to secure victory.


NEW MEDIA: Popular online TV series deleted in new crackdown on internet video

On January 20, Chinese internet users discovered that one of the country’s most popular homegrown online televisions shows had disappeared. All 37 episodes of Go Princess Go!—an offbeat series about a playboy who travels 1,000 years back in time, changes sex, and becomes a concubine—were removed from the web. Later that day, the show’s production company, Leshi Internet Information & Technology Corp. (LeTV), confirmed that it was no longer available. Five other popular programs disappeared soon after, including Lost Tomb, about treasure hunters, and the crime drama Evil Minds. Those shows were produced by iQiyi.com and Tencent. China’s main media regulator, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Film, Radio, and Television (SAPPFRT), did not comment publicly about the reasons and criteria behind the crackdown, but an industry insider told Caixin that it was a signal for “production companies and video companies that they should examine their content more carefully.”

Each of the shows seemed in some way to violate other SAPPRFT regulations regarding television content, including bans on portrayals of time travel, “superstition,” and police brutality. At least one of the production companies announced that its show will be up again soon after a content review, but the removals will nevertheless hurt viewership and competitiveness with traditional television programming. Feng Jun, an analyst at the consultancy ENT Group, told the Financial Times that regulators had singled out the most popular series as a shortcut for increasing content control across the industry, since they do not have the resources to review all of the many amateur programs being posted. In recent years, media regulators have responded to the decreased popularity of state broadcaster CCTV with a string of new rules that restrict entertainment programming on provisional satellite stations and increasingly on internet-based television. In 2015, new regulations restricted the use of set-top boxes and required prior screening of foreign television series.


HONG KONG: Cross-border abductions of booksellers prompt protests, self-censorship

Five people linked to a publishing house and a bookstore in Hong Kong that are known for selling titles banned on the mainland have disappeared since October and are thought to be detained in China. The apparent abductions have sparked protests and raised fears of further Chinese encroachment on the city’s freedoms.

Three of the men were reportedly last seen on the mainland near Hong Kong in October. A fourth, Swedish citizen Gui Minhai, disappeared the same month while in Thailand. The fifth man, Lee Bo, a dual Chinese-British citizen, disappeared from Hong Kong on December 30. The fact that his permit for crossing the border with China was found at his home and immigration documents show no record of him leaving the city have fueled speculation that Chinese security forces abducted him and spirited him into China. Such behavior would be an egregious violation of the “one country, two systems” agreement that guarantees Hong Kong’s autonomy until 2047 and has secured freedoms and judicial independence that are absent on the mainland.

The detentions of Lee and Gui in particular have sparked protests at Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, inquiries from foreign governments and Hong Kong’s chief executive on their whereabouts, a viral online video, and a chilling effect among other Hong Kong booksellers who typically carry politically sensitive titles. On January 7, media reported that the Hong Kong branch of a Singaporean chain had removed books ranging from the bestselling memoir of former Chinese Communist Party general secretary Zhao Ziyang to tales by alleged mistresses of high-level party cadres. A week later, the Guardian reported that the Hong Kong publisher of a new book on Chinese president Xi Jinping had bowed out at the last minute, saying in his e-mail to the author that “people in the industry … feeling great fear and pressure; they want to stay out of trouble.” (The book will instead be published in Taiwan.)

In response to the backlash, mainland authorities sought to convince the world that the two men went to China voluntarily. On January 17, Gui appeared on China Central Television (CCTV), claiming that he returned on his own to face punishment for a 2003 drunk-driving accident that reportedly killed a college student; he asked the Swedish government not to intervene on his behalf. On January 23, Lee’s wife was permitted to meet him at a guesthouse in Guangdong Province and claimed he was in good spirits and was “assisting in an investigation” as a witness. The next day, Singtao newspaper published a letter reportedly written by Lee in which he stated that he is “free and safe,” and asked Hong Kong police not to continue their investigation. Family members, friends, and outside observers cast doubt on the authenticity of these statements. In Gui’s case, Hong Kong media pointed out that his t-shirt in the CCTV video alternates between black and gray, indicating that his “confession” was filmed on two separate occasions and then edited into a different order.

Observers have speculated about what prompted the detention of these individuals now, after their businesses—the Mighty Current publishing house and Causeway Bay bookstore—have been selling sensitive political titles for years, including both salacious gossip and relatively serious narratives about Chinese leaders. Some have pointed to an upcoming book on Xi Jinping’s personal life, a topic that has gained sensitivity as state media have increasingly tied the regime’s legitimacy to Xi’s personal image. Another worrisome explanation emerged on January 24, when Britain’s Sunday Times published an article claiming to have obtained a copy of a leaked Chinese government document called the Guangdong Action Plan. The document refers to orders from April 2015 and instructs authorities to “intensify the external composite counter-attack on banned books.” It reportedly identifies 14 publishing houses and 21 publications in Hong Kong as targets. No further verification of the document has emerged to date, but a 2013 notice describes a similar plan to limit the entry into China of “illegal” publications from Hong Kong.

In 2014, Hong Kong publisher Yao Wentian was arrested on the mainland shortly before the planned release a critical book on Xi Jinping. He was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison on trumped-up smuggling charges.


BEYOND CHINA: Hollywood acquisition, Tiananmen photo sale, hacker attacks on minorities

  • Wanda group buys Hollywood production company: On January 12, China’s Dalian Wanda Group announced its purchase of a major stake in Legendary Entertainment, one of Hollywood’s biggest production companies, for as much as $3.5 billion. Legendary had produced blockbusters like the Dark Knight Batman series, Pacific Rim, and Jurassic World. The Dalian Wanda Group is owned by Wang Jianlin, China’s richest man and a member of the Chinese Communist Party with close ties to elite cadres. The acquisition follows a series of other moves in the entertainment industry by Wang, who already owns AMC, one of the largest movie-theater chains in the United States.
  • Tiananmen images sold to Chinese firm: On January 22, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates announced the sale of the licensing arm of his company Corbis Entertainment to Visual China Group (VCG). Among the trove of 200 million photos that will be created as a result of the deal are iconic images from Beijing’s 1989 crackdown on prodemocracy protesters, including photos of bloodied students and a man standing in front of a row of tanks. Some activists raised concerns that such images, which are systematically censored inside China, could now be restricted globally. However, executives at Corbis, VCG, and Getty Images, which is partnering with the Chinese firm, dismissed such fears, stating that they were committed to distributing the photos internationally and that the rights to many politically sensitive images in the licensing archive were still owned by other entities like Reuters and the Associated Press.
  • Foreign tech firms vary in responses to Great Firewall: China’s website filtering system, commonly known as the Great Firewall, poses a challenge to many foreign companies. A recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce found that four out of five U.S. companies are negatively affected by Chinese internet censorship. On January 21, CNN reported that Facebook had made an adjustment to its Google Android application so that a change in settings will automatically enable users to connect to the internet via Orbot, the app of the anonymity and circumvention tool Tor. The change could increase access for Chinese users to the social-media platform, whose website is blocked in China, although the Great Firewall has in the past successfully neutralized Tor. By contrast, on January 20, Global Voices reported that in response to pressure from Chinese government regulators, Microsoft Azure China, which provides cloud storage for leading content-delivery networks, issued a letter to its clients urging them to “conduct self-examination and rectification immediately” and remove access to “illegal ‘over the wall’ proxy sites” and virtual private networks.
  • Cyberespionage targets Uighur, Tibetan advocates: On January 24, online security firm Palo Alto Networks published the findings of its seven-month investigation of a hacker group it dubbed “Scarlet Mimic,” which used various tactics to conduct cyberespionage against Uighurs, Tibetans, and their supporters, including via mobile devices. The report does not explicitly state how many targets were outside China, but the cited examples of “decoy” e-mail messages consist primarily of English documents, including a New York Times article about the death of a Tibetan monk and a press release from the World Uyghur Congress. Researchers could not find evidence conclusively tying the hackers to the Chinese government, but the report says the group’s motivations appear “similar to the stated position of the Chinese government in relation to these targets.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Trials, sentences for detained lawyers: Watch for announcements of trial dates and verdicts for the lawyers detained in the July 2015 crackdown. The penalty issued in December against prominent lawyer Pu Zhiqiang—a three-year suspended sentence—was relatively lenient, suggesting that if significant international and domestic pressure is applied, some of those still awaiting verdicts could receive lighter sentences than might otherwise be handed down. Indeed, the harsh 19-year prison term imposed last month on Zhang Haitao may have stemmed in part from his relative international obscurity, in addition to his location in the sensitive region of Xinjiang.

Intensified Taiwan censorship after power transfer: Following the opposition Democratic Progressive Party’s victory in Taiwan’s January 16 elections, newly elected legislators took their seats on February 1, and Tsai Ing-wen will replace Ma Ying-jeou as president in May. During and after the transition, watch for more censorship and aggressive state-media responses to Taiwan-related news.

Hong Kong government’s response to bookseller cases: The Hong Kong government has come under significant public pressure to extract information from Beijing on the five detained booksellers. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Hong Kong police have reportedly made inquiries on the detainees’ behalf, but it remains to be seen how aggressively they will investigate—and respond to—the allegations and circumstantial evidence that at least one of the men was abducted by Chinese security forces in Hong Kong and then spirited across the border.

中国媒体快报 第112期:2016年2月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0

标题


特写  对中国政治犯的家人来说,这是一个阴影笼罩下的春节

本文的一个版本发表于2016年2月4日《华尔街日报》亚洲版。

在下星期即将开始的中国春节假期、也是中国最大的节日期间,十多亿中国人将与家人团聚,享受饺子、狮子舞、红豆汤等美食。 但是中国当局近来针对十多位律师和活动人士宣布了严重指控或刑期,一些中国最重要的人权捍卫者的家人们意识到,他们将无法与自己所爱的人一起渡过春节,未来很多节日可能也将在大墙相隔中渡过。

个人悲剧之外,这些指控和判刑还代表着习近平领导下的共产党不仅在加大力度对政治改革的呼吁进行刑事惩罚,而且对寻求公平司法的普通形式的法律和网络抗争也不例外。

1月9日,中国当局对2015年7月间被抓捕的律师、律所工作人员以及一些活动者实施的"指定居所监视居住"(未经正式指控而实行的拘禁) 到期。 在短短几天内、 六个律师的家人、律所工作人员收到了他们的丈夫、母亲、儿子、或女儿因"颠覆国家政权"指控而被正式逮捕的通知。 这是一个严重指控刑期可上至无期徒刑。

另外四人被指控「煽动颠覆」,这个罪名相对较轻,可以面临15年刑期,经常被用来惩罚网上对政府的批评。 至少17名被拘押者的家人还没有得到任何消息,只能想象当局将如何对待他们的亲人。

家属、朋友、同事以及外国观察者对这些律师和他们的助理所受到的指控之严重、可能面临的重刑、以及这一切对中国人权、法治以及言论自由可能会带来的结果表示震惊。 游明磊是24岁的律师助理赵威的丈夫。 他从去年夏天妻子被捕以来还没有见过她。 他说,「对这样一个小姑娘来说这是个太大的指控。 ”

一个星期后,1月15日,新疆一名汉人维权者被判处19年徒刑,令人乍舌。 张海涛被指控「煽动颠覆国家政权」以及「非法向境外提供情报」。 除了在网上张贴批评政府政策的文章外,他接受了位于美国的电台采访,对新疆的一些事件表达了意见。 张海涛的妻子将需要独自抚养他们才一个月大的婴儿。 外国记者很难去新疆进行实地报导。

1月29日广州一家法院对一名律师、一名作者和一名老师做出判决。 他们三人在过去数年中从事推动人权和民主的活动。 在已经被监禁20个月后唐荆陵、袁朝阳、和王清营分别被判处5年、3年半和两年半徒刑。

像他们这样因政治或宗教「罪行」而被囚禁的中国人可能有成千上万。 他们的家人被迫忍受与亲人的分离。

一月份的这些案例也突出了共产党威权统治的两个重要特征。 首先,现政权正在更多使用「颠覆」罪来惩罚活动者,而在习近平上台之初,当局的策略本来是转用非政治化的刑事罪来惩罚异见。 第二,当局大量使用《刑事诉讼法》第73条「监视居住」六个月的条款对活动者进行秘密监禁,证实了这个条款2012年通过时许多人权组织表达的忧虑。 从这些趋势,我们可以看到2015年生效的新的法律限制将会如何被用来惩罚和平表达异见以及从事倡导活动。

但即使是在这样一个黑暗的时候,许多个人以及他们的家人仍然对自由事业不改初衷,对中国的未来心怀希望。

"亲爱的父亲母亲,....无论周围环境怎样恶劣、 一定要顽强地活下去、"被指控"颠覆政权"的王全璋律师在一封被捕前致父母的信中写道,"等待云开日出的那一天。 ”

本着同样的精神,在2月8日猴年来临之际,朋友们和远方的支持者们可以给中国人权捍卫者的家人送去问候、礼物包裹、乃至推文,表达关怀(试试 #HappyCNY 至 #ChineseHRD 这两个标签)。

这些小小的举动可以有很大的意义,显示他们的困境、他们所爱的人、以及他们所为之付出的事业没有被人遗忘。

萨拉∙库克是自由之家东亚资深研究员,《中国媒体快报》负责人。


纸媒/ 新媒体:中文媒体不知如何报道台湾历史性选举

虽然台湾政治和选举在中国永远是敏感话题,但是与以往相比,1月16日举行的台湾总统和立法院选举据报道遭到更加严格的媒体限制和警告。这也许与选举结果相关。如人们所预期的那样,反对党民进党大获全胜,击败了相对亲中的国民党,在台湾民主中建立了两个历史性标志:产生了第一位女总统;第一次出现国民党不占多数的立法院。

记者保护委员会的王亚秋写道,与2012年国民党赢得选举时相比,不管是网络还是纸媒,对这次台湾选举的报道都相当沉默。2012年,各大网络平台开辟专栏报道,今年只有来自新华社的数条报道,新浪微博曾在一段时间内封锁了“台湾”两字的搜索。报纸方面,2012年有头版报道,2016年则只在中页有简短报道。

这一变化既反映了对报道台湾选举的限制,也反映了与四年前相比牵制更紧的媒体与互联网环境。有报道说中国国家互联网信息办公室禁止纸媒和网络媒体派记者到台湾进行直播。那些不顾禁令派了记者去台湾的媒体竭力保持低调,只在手机应用上提供报道,但是即使这样做也有风险。一位媒体咨询者在微信公号上向他的5万订阅者提供报道,1月18日他说,他的公号已被永久关闭。

对台湾选举的报道也显示出了中国媒体必须使用的一些曲笔,以避免与中国的“一个中国”政策发生矛盾。比如,它们不说“总统”选举,而说“领导人选举”,电视广播中遮蔽了中华民国国旗以及其它宣示主权的标志。

官媒的报道集中在以下几个主题上:

  • 警告当选总统蔡英文不要推动台湾的正式独立,以免“毒化”两岸关系,走进“死路”,并且说她解决社会经济问题的努力是“上树找鱼”。不过官媒对蔡英文的描述不像对民进党前任总统陈水扁那样恶毒。
  • 回避不谈国民党的亲中政策是导致选举失败的原因。相反,官媒的评论强调国民党内斗、失业率上升、社会不平等等因素。
  • 强调台湾政治奇怪的方面,让民主看上去不那么吸引人。比如说,刊登候选人穿着狗服或打扮成传统神祗以吸引选票。中国官媒还报道说,许多台湾人有“选举综合症”,对政治走火入魔,以至于出现失眠、头痛、或者其它不适。

与11月份的一次事件相仿,成千上万中国网民倾巢出动,在蔡英文脸书以及十个台湾和香港媒体网站贴了大量“爱国”留言或者敌视的评论。他们显然需要翻越中国的国家“防火墙”才能登陆这些被防火墙封锁的网站。这是一次由百度贴吧组织的活动。很难确定这在多大程度上得到了官方支持,1月22日,审查当局据说发表了一项禁令,试图阻止媒体对这一事件的报道,以“防止传播‘翻墙’以及其它有害技术信息。”当局这样做毫不出人意外。


广播媒体:瑞典NGO工作者和台湾歌星录像“道歉”

自从习近平2012年11月担任中国共产党领导人以来,中国当局兴起了电视认罪和“自我批评”等令人联想起毛泽东时代的做法。这种做法的受害者们在未被审判、甚至未被控罪的情况下被迫上中央电视台“认罪”,有时还穿着囚服。这种电视认罪受到了国际间的强烈批评,被认为是破坏法制的行为。同时这种做法据说也在一些中央电视台的工作人员中引起不满,认为电视台被当作攻击共产党假想敌的武器。从2012年至今,有一长串中国官员、律师、网络名人等出现在这样的电视认罪报道中,仅仅是过去两年,至少10名记者受到了这样的待遇。现在上电视认罪的人当中甚至有了外国人

尽管如此,当瑞典人彼得∙达林1月19日出现在中央电视台、承认所谓的罪行时,许多在中国以及海外的观察者还是大吃一惊。达林是一个维权协助组织的一名共同创立人, 是第一个受到这种待遇的非政府组织外国工作者。 达林之前被拘留了两个星期,他被指控经营一个“非法组织”,并“组织大众反对政府”。他在电视录制的节目中为“伤害中国人民的感情”、为支持包括律师王全璋在内的一些中国人而道歉。后者目前都在关押中,面临严重的政治指控。

在国际压力下,达林1月25日获得释放并被递解出境。这一事件对公民社会是一个恐吓,是中国当局抹黑“维权运动”声誉、切断活动者获得国际支持的一个极端做法。1月21日,记者无疆界组织呼吁欧盟对中国国家媒体官员实行制裁,并指出,2013年伊朗广播了一系列被认为违反公平审判的电视认罪后,欧盟采取了制裁措施。

在另一起不相关的事件中,1月15日,在一段更多出于商业动机的认错录像中,韩国流行乐队TWICE 16岁的台湾歌星周子瑜在YouTube上发布了一段录像,对自己在一次电视节目中挥舞一面中华民国小旗、从而令中国大陆人不悦表示道歉。在这段得到国际媒体广泛注意的录像中,周子瑜表示“只有一个中国”,并且说她会暂时结束在中国的一切活动,反省自己的行动。她在录像中多次鞠躬。在亲中国的台湾艺人举报周子瑜亲独立的倾向后,中国网民呼吁抵制这个乐队。据说这个乐队的管理公司JYP娱乐公司要求周子瑜录像道歉。一些观察者认为,这段在台湾大选前一天发布的录像激发了反对派选民的愤怒,帮助民进党取得了更大胜利。


新媒体:流行网络电视系列被下线,互联网录像受到新一轮打压

1月20日,中国网民发现中国最受欢迎的网上电视节目不见了。所有37集《太子妃升职记》被从网上删除。这个系列剧讲的是一个花花公子时光倒流回一千年,改变性别,成为一名小妾。那天晚些时候,这个节目的制片公司乐视网信息技术公司证实这个系列被下线。之后不久,另外五个流行节目也被下线,包括关于寻宝历险的《盗墓笔记》、以及罪案戏剧《心理罪》。这些节目都由爱奇艺和腾讯制作。中国国家管制机构国家新闻出版广电总局没有公开评论这些节目下线的原因以及评判理由,但是一名业内人士告诉财新说,这表示警告“制片公司和录像公司应该更谨慎地注意他们的内容。”

这几个节目中的每个节目看来都在某种方式上违反了国家新闻出版广电总局对电视内容的规定,包括禁止时间旅行、“迷信”、以及警察野蛮执法。至少一个制作公司宣布说,在对内容进行审查后它的节目将会很快重新上线,但是这样的下线还是会影响观众数量以及与传统电视节目的竞争。艺恩网分析师冯军(音)告诉《金融时报》说,政府管制人员专门挑出最流行的节目作为打击目标,是在行业内加强内容控制的一条捷径,因为他们没有资源去一一审阅许多业余者制作和上线的节目。近年来,中央电视台等官方电视节目受欢迎程度下降,国家管制者实行了一系列新规定,限制临时卫星电视台以及越来越多的互联网电视娱乐节目。 2015年出台的新规定限制使用机顶盒,并要求对外国电视节目进行预审。


香港:跨境绑架书商引发抗议和自我审查

自去年十月以来,香港一家以出版和出售大陆禁书闻名的出版商和一家书店的五名人员相继失踪,被认为拘押在中国。这一系列绑架事件在香港引发抗议,并令港人担心中国政府会进一步损害他们的自由。

据说这五人中的三人最后一次露面是去年十月在香港附近的大陆地区。第四个人,即瑞典公民桂民海,同月在泰国失踪。第五个人,即具有中国和英国双重国籍的李波,12月30日在香港失踪。他的回乡证在家中被找到,移民局的记录中没有他离开香港的记录。人们于是猜测,中国安全人员将他绑架回了中国。这样的做法严重践踏了“一国两制”协议。这个协议承诺香港在2047年前保持自治,保证大陆所没有的各种自由以及司法独立。

李波与桂民海的失踪引发了在北京政府驻香港联络办公室外的抗议外国政府以及香港行政长官对他们的下落的询问,一个相关主题的录像在网上得到广泛传阅,其他出版政治敏感书籍的香港出版商感到寒蝉若噤。1月7日,媒体报道说,新加坡一家连锁书店的香港分店撤下了非常畅销的共产党前总书记赵紫阳的回忆录以及据说是前党内高官情妇的告白录等书籍。一个星期后,英国《卫报》报道说,香港出版商在最后时刻与作者撤销了一本有关习近平的新书的出版合同,他在与作者的邮件中说,业内的人….感到很大恐惧和压力;他们不希望惹事上身。(这本书现在将在台湾出版。)

鉴于其做法引起强烈反响,中国当局寻求让外界相信这两个人是自愿去中国的。1月17日,桂民海出现在中央电视台,声称他自愿回到中国,面临2003年一起醉酒驾车事故的惩罚。据说这次事故导致一名大学生死亡。他要求瑞典政府不要为他交涉。1月23日,李波的妻子被准许在广东的一个宾馆见他,并声称他状态很好,正在作为一名证人而“协助调查”。次日,《星岛日报》出版了一封据说是李波写的信,其中声称他是“自由和安全”的,请求香港警察不要继续他们的调查。亲属、朋友、和外界观察者对这些声明的真实性表示怀疑。在桂民海的情况下,香港媒体指出,他在中央电视台录像中穿的T恤衫由黑变灰,表明他的“认罪”是在两个不同时段录制的,然后被编辑和剪接而成。

观察者们一直在猜测到底是什么引发了这几个人的被绑架和拘押。他们经营的巨流出版社和铜锣湾书店多年来出售敏感政治书籍,包括关于中国领导人的一些耸人听闻的传说和相对严肃些的叙述。有人指出他们准备出版的一本关于习近平个人生活的书。随着官方媒体越来越将政权的合法性与习近平的个人形象联系在一起,这样的话题变得敏感。另一个令人忧虑的解释出现在1月24日英国《星期日泰晤士报》的一篇文章中。文章声称获得了一份泄密的、题为《广东行动计划》的政府文件。 文件中提到当局2015年4月的指令,要“深化铲除反制港台反动出版活动”。据说这个行动计划锁定了香港14家出版社和21种出版物作为目标。至今还没有看到对这份文件的进一步核实,但是2013年的一份通知曾经描述过限制“非法”出版物从香港进入中国的计划。

2014年,香港出版商姚文田在即将出版一本批评习近平的著作前不久,在大陆被逮捕。之后中国当局以走私指控判处他10年徒刑。


中国之外:好莱坞收购,天安门图片出售,黑客攻击少数民族

  • 万达集团购买好莱坞制片公司: 1月12日,中国大连万达集团宣布以35亿美元收购好莱坞大制片公司之一传奇娱乐公司。传奇制作的大片包括《蝙蝠侠 – 黑暗骑士》、《环太平洋》、《侏罗纪世界》等。大连万达集团的拥有人是王健林,他不仅是中国最富有的人,而且是一名中共党员,与高层官员有密切关系。此前,王健林已经在娱乐界进行了一系列收购,他已经拥有美国最大的连锁电影剧院之一AMC.
  • 天安门图像卖给了一家中国公司:1月22日,微软创始人、慈善家比尔∙盖茨宣布将他拥有的Corbis Entertainment公司的授权部门出售给视觉中国集团。这个交易涉及两亿张图片的使用权,其中包括1989年对天安门民主运动进行镇压的图片,包括受伤学生鲜血淋漓的照片以及著名的坦克人照片。一些活动人士担心这些图片的使用会在全球受到限制,中国当局则一直系统地审查这些图片。但是Corbis、视觉中国集团、以及与视觉中国合作的Getty Images的高管们说, 他们继续致力于在全球发行这些图片,而且这次出售的图片中许多政治敏感图像的使用权仍然由其他媒体组织拥有,如路透社和美联社。
  • 外国技术公司对中国防火墙的不同反应:中国的网站过滤系统、即众所周知的“中国防火墙”对许多外国公司来说构成挑战。美国商会最近一个调查显示,中国的互联网审查对四分之五的美国公司造成负面影响。1月21日,CNN报道说,脸书对它的谷歌安卓手机应用做了一个调整,在设置中做一个改变就能自动将用户通过Orbot 连到互联网。Orbot是匿名翻墙浏览器Tor 的一个应用。这个改变可以使得中国用户更容易地使用被中国当局封锁的脸书,不过防火墙过去曾经成功地阻拦过Tor. 相比之下,1月20日,Global Voices 报道说,出于中国政府的压力,为主要内容传播网络提供云储存的微软云计算平台 Microsoft Azura China 致信客户,敦促他们立即进行“自查整改”,清除“非法翻墙代理网站”以及VPN网络。
  • 网络间谍攻击维吾尔、西藏倡导人士:1月24日,网络安全公司Palo Alto Networks发表了对一个名为“Scarlet Mimic”的黑客组织为期七个月的调查所得到的结论。这个组织使用不同的战术对维吾尔人、藏人、他们的支持者进行网络间谍,包括通过手机等移动设备。报告没有明确指出有多少目标在中国境外,但是它举的“伪装”邮件例子主要由英语文件组成,包括《纽约时报》关于一名藏人僧侣死亡的报道以及世界维吾尔人大会的一个消息发布。研究人员无法找到确凿无疑的证据将黑客与中国政府联系在一起,但是报告说,这个组织的动机看来“与中国政府对待这些目标的立场一样。” 

未来看点

被拘禁律师的审判与判刑:2015年7月间被捕律师的审判日期和刑期。12月对著名律师浦志强的惩罚(三年缓刑)相对来说较轻,这表明如果国际和国内压力大的话,一些仍在等待判决的人可能会收到相对轻一些的刑期。的确,张海涛上个月获得19年重刑,部分原因可能是因为他在国际上无人知道,又地处新疆这个敏感地区。

在权力交接后加强对台湾的审查:反对党民进党在1月16日的选举中胜利后,新当选的立法委员已在2月1日上任,蔡英文将于5月取代马英九担任总统。在权力交接期间以及之后,注意看是否会有更多对台湾消息的审查以及中国官方媒体的强硬反应。

香港政府对书商案的反应:自从五名书商在中国被拘押以来,香港政府受到相当大的公众压力,要求从北京获得相关信息。据说行政长官梁振英和香港警方询问了这五人的情况,但是港府是否会对有关指控和证据进行强有力调查,还有待观察。有指控说,这五人当中至少一人被中国安全人员在香港绑架后被越境押到中国。

中國媒體快報 第112期,2016年2月 (Traditional Chinese)

$
0
0

標題


特寫  對中國政治犯的家人來說,這是一個陰影籠罩下的春節

薩拉∙庫克

本文的一個版本發表于2016年2月4日《華爾街日報》亞洲版。

在下星期即將開始的中國春節假期、也是中國最大的節日期間,十多億中國人將與家人團聚,享受餃子、獅子舞、紅豆湯等美食。 但是中國當局近來針對十多位律師和活動人士宣佈了嚴重指控或刑期,一些中國最重要的人權捍衛者的家人們意識到,他們將無法與自己所愛的人一起渡過春節,未來很多節日可能也將在大牆相隔中渡過。

個人悲劇之外,這些指控和判刑還代表著習近平領導下的共產黨不僅在加大力度對政治改革的呼籲進行刑事懲罰,而且對尋求公平司法的普通形式的法律和網路抗爭也不例外。

1月9日,中國當局對2015年7月間被抓捕的律師、律所工作人員以及一些活動者實施的"指定居所監視居住"(未經正式指控而實行的拘禁) 到期。在短短幾天內、 六個律師的家人、律所工作人員收到了他們的丈夫、母親、兒子、或女兒因"顛覆國家政權"指控而被正式逮捕的通知。這是一個嚴重指控,刑期可上至無期徒刑。

另外四人被指控「煽動顛覆」,這個罪名相對較輕,可以面臨15年刑期,經常被用來懲罰網上對政府的批評。 至少17名被拘押者的家人還沒有得到任何消息,只能想像當局將如何對待他們的親人。

家屬、朋友、同事以及外國觀察者對這些律師和他們的助理所受到的指控之嚴重、可能面臨的重刑、以及這一切對中國人權、法治以及言論自由可能會帶來的結果表示震驚。 游明磊是24歲的律師助理趙威的丈夫。 他從去年夏天妻子被捕以來還沒有見過她。 他說,「對這樣一個小姑娘來說這是個太大的指控。 」

一個星期後,1月15日,新疆一名漢人維權者被判處19年徒刑,令人乍舌。 張海濤被指控「煽動顛覆國家政權」以及「非法向境外提供情報」。 除了在網上張貼批評政府政策的文章外,他接受了位於美國的電臺採訪,對新疆的一些事件表達了意見。 張海濤的妻子將需要獨自撫養他們才一個月大的嬰兒。 外國記者很難去新疆進行實地報導。

1月29日廣州一家法院對一名律師、一名作者和一名老師做出判決。他們三人在過去數年中從事推動人權和民主的活動。在已經被監禁20個月後唐荊陵、袁朝陽、和王清營分別被判處5年、3年半和兩年半徒刑。

像他們這樣因政治或宗教「罪行」而被囚禁的中國人可能有成千上萬。 他們的家人被迫忍受與親人的分離。

一月份的這些案例也突出了共產黨威權統治的兩個重要特徵。 首先,現政權正在更多使用「顛覆」罪來懲罰活動者,而在習近平上臺之初,當局的策略本來是轉用非政治化的刑事罪來懲罰異見。 第二,當局大量使用《刑事訴訟法》第73條「監視居住」六個月的條款對活動者進行秘密監禁,證實了這個條款2012年通過時許多人權組織表達的憂慮。 從這些趨勢,我們可以看到2015年生效的新的法律限制將會如何被用來懲罰和平表達異見以及從事倡导活動。

但即使是在這樣一個黑暗的時候,許多個人以及他們的家人仍然對自由事業不改初衷,對中國的未來心懷希望。

“親愛的父親母親,...無論周圍環境怎樣惡劣,一定要頑強地活下去,”被指控"顛覆政權"的王全璋律師在一封被捕前致父母的信中寫道,“等待雲開日出的那一天。”

本著同樣的精神,在2月8日猴年來臨之際,朋友們和遠方的支持者們可以給中國人權捍衛者的家人送去問候、禮物包裹、乃至推文,表達關懷(試試 #HappyCNY 至 #ChineseHRD 這兩個標籤)。

這些小小的舉動可以有很大的意義,顯示他們的困境、他們所愛的人、以及他們所為之付出的事業沒有被人遺忘。

薩拉庫克是自由之家東亞資深研究員,《中國媒體快報》負責人。


紙媒 / 新媒體: 中文媒體不知如何報導臺灣歷史性選舉

雖然臺灣政治和選舉在中國永遠是敏感話題,但是與以往相比,1月16日舉行的臺灣總統和立法院選舉據報導遭到更加嚴格的媒體限制和警告。 這也許與選舉結果相關。 如人們所預期的那樣,反對黨民進黨大獲全勝,擊敗了相對親中的國民黨,在臺灣民主中建立了兩個歷史性標誌:產生了第一位女總統;第一次出現國民黨不占多數的立法院。

記者保護委員會的王亞秋寫道,與2012年國民黨贏得選舉時相比,不管是網路還是紙媒,對這次臺灣選舉的報導都相當沉默。 2012年,各大網路平臺開闢專欄報導,今年只有來自新華社的數條報導,新浪微博曾在一段時間內封鎖了「臺灣」兩字的搜索。 報紙方面,2012年有頭版報導,2016年則只在中頁有簡短報導。

這一變化既反映了對報導臺灣選舉的限制,也反映了與四年前相比牽制更緊的媒體與互聯網環境。 有報導說中國國家互聯網資訊辦公室禁止紙媒和網路媒體派記者到臺灣進行直播。 那些不顧禁令派了記者去臺灣的媒體竭力保持低調,只在手機應用上提供報導,但是即使這樣做也有風險。 一位媒體諮詢者在微信公號上向他的5萬訂閱者提供報導,1月18日他說,他的公號已被永久關閉。

對臺灣選舉的報導也顯示出了中國媒體必須使用的一些曲筆,以避免與中國的「一個中國」政策發生矛盾。 比如,它們不說「總統」選舉,而說「領導人選舉」,電視廣播中遮蔽了中華民國國旗以及其它宣示主權的標誌。

官媒的報導集中在以下幾個主題上:

  • 警告當選總統蔡英文不要推動臺灣的正式獨立,以免「毒化」兩岸關係,走進「死路」,並且說她解決社會經濟問題的努力是「上樹找魚」。 不過官媒對蔡英文的描述不像對民進黨前任總統陳水扁那樣惡毒。
  • 回避不談國民黨的親中政策是導致選舉失敗的原因。 相反,官媒的評論強調國民黨內鬥、失業率上升、社會不平等等因素。
  • 強調臺灣政治奇怪的方面,讓民主看上去不那麼吸引人。 比如說,刊登候選人穿著狗服或打扮成傳統神祗以吸引選票。 中國官媒還報導說,許多臺灣人有「選舉綜合症」,對政治走火入魔,以至於出現失眠、頭痛、或者其它不適。

與11月份的一次事件相仿,成千上萬中國網民傾巢出動,在蔡英文臉書以及十個臺灣和香港媒體網站貼了大量「愛國」留言或者敵視的評論。 他們顯然需要翻越中國的國家「防火牆」才能登陸這些被防火牆封鎖的網站。 這是一次由百度貼吧組織的活動。 很難確定這在多大程度上得到了官方支援,1月22日,審查當局據說發表了一項禁令,試圖阻止媒體對這一事件的報導,以「防止傳播‘翻牆’以及其它有害技術資訊。 」當局這樣做毫不出人意外。


广播媒体:瑞典NGO工作者和台湾歌星录像“道歉”

自從習近平2012年11月擔任中國共產黨領導人以來,中國當局興起了電視認罪和「自我批評」等令人聯想起毛澤東時代的做法。 這種做法的受害者們在未被審判、甚至未被控罪的情況下被迫上中央電視臺「認罪」,有時還穿著囚服。 這種電視認罪受到了國際間的強烈批評,被認為是破壞法制的行為。 同時這種做法據說也在一些中央電視臺的工作人員中引起不滿,認為電視臺被當作攻擊共產黨假想敵的武器。 從2012年至今,有一長串中國官員、律師、網路名人等出現在這樣的電視認罪報導中,僅僅是過去兩年,至少10名記者受到了這樣的待遇。 現在上電視認罪的人當中甚至有了外國人

儘管如此,當瑞典人彼得∙達林1月19日出現在中央電視臺、承認所謂的罪行時,許多在中國以及海外的觀察者還是大吃一驚。達林是一個維權協助組織的一名共同創立人, 是第一個受到這種待遇的非政府組織外國工作者。達林之前被拘留了兩個星期,他被指控經營一個「非法組織」,並「組織大眾反對政府」。他在電視錄製的節目中為「傷害中國人民的感情」、為支援包括律師王全璋在內的一些中國人而道歉。後者目前都在關押中,面臨嚴重的政治指控。

在國際壓力下,達林1月25日獲得釋放並被遞解出境。 這一事件對公民社會是一個恐嚇,是中國當局抹黑「維權運動」聲譽、切斷活動者獲得國際支援的一個極端做法。 1月21日,記者無疆界組織呼籲歐盟對中國國家媒體官員實行制裁,並指出,2013年伊朗廣播了一系列被認為違反公平審判的電視認罪後,歐盟採取了制裁措施。

在另一起不相關的事件中,1月15日,在一段更多出於商業動機的認錯錄影中,韓國流行樂隊TWICE 16歲的臺灣歌星周子瑜在YouTube上發佈了一段錄影,對自己在一次電視節目中揮舞一面中華民國小旗、從而令中國大陸人不悅表示道歉。 在這段得到國際媒體廣泛注意的錄影中,周子瑜表示「只有一個中國」,並且說她會暫時結束在中國的一切活動,反省自己的行動。 她在錄影中多次鞠躬。 在親中國的臺灣藝人舉報周子瑜親獨立的傾向後,中國線民呼籲抵制這個樂隊。 據說這個樂隊的管理公司JYP娛樂公司要求周子瑜錄影道歉。 一些觀察者認為,這段在臺灣大選前一天發佈的錄影激發了反對派選民的憤怒,説明民進黨取得了更大勝利。


新媒體流行網路電視系列被下線,互聯網錄影受到新一輪打壓

1 月 10 日中國線民發現中國最受歡迎的網上電視節目不見了。所有37集《太子妃升職記》被從網上刪除。這個系列劇講的是一個花花公子時光倒流回一千年,改變性別成為一名小妾。那天晚些時候這個節目的製片公司樂視網資訊技術公司證實這個系列被下線。之後不久,另外五個流行節目也被下線包括關於尋寶歷險的《盜墓筆記》、以及罪案戲劇《心理罪》。這些節目都由愛奇藝和騰訊製作。中國國家管制機構國家新聞出版廣電總局沒有公開評論這些節目下線的原因以及評判理由,但是一名業內人士告訴財新說,這表示警告"製片公司和錄影公司應該更謹慎地注意他們的內容。”

這幾個節目中的每個節目看來都在某種方式上違反了國家新聞出版廣電總局對電視內容的規定,包括禁止時間旅行、「迷信」、以及員警野蠻執法。 至少一個製作公司宣佈說,在對內容進行審查後它的節目將會很快重新上線,但是這樣的下線還是會影響觀眾數量以及與傳統電視節目的競爭。 藝恩網分析師馮軍(音)告訴《金融時報》說,政府管制人員專門挑出最流行的節目作為打擊目標,是在行業內加強內容控制的一條捷徑,因為他們沒有資源去一一審閱許多業餘者製作和上線的節目。 近年來,中央電視臺等官方電視節目受歡迎程度下降,國家管制者實行了一系列新規定,限制臨時衛星電視臺以及越來越多的互聯網電視娛樂節目。2015年出臺的新規定限制使用機上盒,並要求對外國電視節目進行預審。


香港: 跨境綁架書商引發抗議和自我審查

自去年十月以來,香港一家以出版和出售大陸禁書聞名的出版商和一家書店的五名人員相繼失蹤,被認為拘押在中國。 這一系列綁架事件在香港引發抗議,並令港人擔心中國政府會進一步損害他們的自由。

據說這五人中的三人最後一次露面是去年十月在香港附近的大陸地區。 第四個人,即瑞典公民桂民海,同月在泰國失蹤。 第五個人,即具有中國和英國雙重國籍的李波,12月30日在香港失蹤。 他的回鄉證在家中被找到,移民局的記錄中沒有他離開香港的記錄。 人們於是猜測,中國安全人員將他綁架回了中國。 這樣的做法嚴重踐踏了「一國兩制」協定。 這個協定承諾香港在2047年前保持自治,保證大陸所沒有的各種自由以及司法獨立。

李波與桂民海的失蹤引發了在北京政府駐香港聯絡辦公室外的抗議外國政府以及香港行政長官對他們的下落的詢問,一個相關主題的錄影在網上得到廣泛傳閱,其他出版政治敏感書籍的香港出版商感到寒蟬若噤。1月7日,媒體報導說,新加坡一家連鎖書店的香港分店撤下了非常暢銷的共產黨前總書記趙紫陽的回憶錄以及據說是前黨內高官情婦的告白錄等書籍。一個星期後,英國《衛報》報導說,香港出版商在最後時刻與作者撤銷了一本有關習近平的新書的出版合同,他在與作者的郵件中說,業內的人....感到很大恐懼和壓力;他們不希望惹事上身。 (這本書現在將在臺灣出版。 )

鑒於其做法引起強烈反響,中國當局尋求讓外界相信這兩個人是自願去中國的。1月17日,桂民海出現在中央電視臺,聲稱他自願回到中國,面臨2003年一起醉酒駕車事故的懲罰。 據說這次事故導致一名大學生死亡。 他要求瑞典政府不要為他交涉。 1月23日,李波的妻子被准許在廣東的一個賓館見他,並聲稱他狀態很好,正在作為一名證人而「協助調查」。次日,《星島日報》出版了一封據說是李波寫的信,其中聲稱他是「自由和安全」的,請求香港員警不要繼續他們的調查。 親屬、朋友、和外界觀察者對這些聲明的真實性表示懷疑。 在桂民海的情況下,香港媒體指出,他在中央電視臺錄影中穿的T恤衫由黑變灰,表明他的「認罪」是在兩個不同時段錄製的,然後被編輯和剪接而成。

觀察者們一直在猜測到底是什麼引發了這幾個人的被綁架和拘押。他們經營的巨流出版社和銅鑼灣書店多年來出售敏感政治書籍,包括關於中國領導人的一些聳人聽聞的傳說和相對嚴肅些的敘述。有人指出他們準備出版的一本關於習近平個人生活的書。隨著官方媒體越來越將政權的合法性與習近平的個人形象聯繫在一起,這樣的話題變得敏感。另一個令人憂慮的解釋出現在1月24日英國《星期日泰晤士報》的一篇文章中。文章聲稱獲得了一份洩密的、題為《廣東行動計畫》的政府文件。文件中提到當局2015年4月的指令,要「深化剷除反制港臺反動出版活動」。據說這個行動計畫鎖定了香港14家出版社和21種出版物作為目標。至今還沒有看到對這份文件的進一步核實,但是2013年的一份通知曾經描述過限制「非法」出版物從香港進入中國的計畫。

2014年,香港出版商姚文田在即將出版一本批評習近平的著作前不久在大陸被逮捕。之後中國當局以走私指控判處他10年徒刑。


中國之外好萊塢收購,天安門圖片出售,駭客攻擊少數民族

  • 萬達集團購買好萊塢製片公司: 1月12日,中國大連萬達集團宣佈以35億美元收購好萊塢大製片公司之一傳奇娛樂公司。傳奇製作的大片包括《蝙蝠俠 – 黑暗騎士》、《環太平洋》、《侏羅紀世界》等。 大連萬達集團的擁有人是王健林,他不僅是中國最富有的人,而且是一名中共黨員,與高層官員有密切關係。此前,王健林已經在娛樂界進行了一系列收購,他已經擁有美國最大的連鎖電影劇院之一AMC.
  • 天安門圖像賣給了一家中國公司:1月22日,微軟創始人、慈善家比爾∙蓋茨宣佈將他擁有的Corbis Entertainment公司的授權部門出售給視覺中國集團。這個交易涉及兩億張圖片的使用權,其中包括1989年對天安門民主運動進行鎮壓的圖片,包括受傷學生鮮血淋漓的照片以及著名的坦克人照片。 一些活動人士擔心這些圖片的使用會在全球受到限制,中國當局則一直系統地審查這些圖片。 但是Corbis、視覺中國集團、以及與視覺中國合作的Getty Images的高管們說, 他們繼續致力於在全球發行這些圖片,而且這次出售的圖片中許多政治敏感圖像的使用權仍然由其他媒體組織擁有,如路透社和美聯社。
  • 外國技術公司對中國防火牆的不同反應:中國的網站過濾系統、即眾所周知的「中國防火牆」對許多外國公司來說構成挑戰。美國商會最近一個調查顯示,中國的互聯網審查對四分之五的美國公司造成負面影響。1月21日,CNN報導說,臉書對它的谷歌安卓手機應用做了一個調整,在設置中做一個改變就能自動將使用者通過Orbot 連到互聯網。Orbot是匿名翻牆瀏覽器Tor 的一個應用。這個改變可以使得中國使用者更容易地使用被中國當局封鎖的臉書,不過防火牆過去曾經成功地阻攔過Tor.相比之下,1月20日,Global Voices 報導說,出於中國政府的壓力,為主要內容傳播網路提供雲儲存的微軟雲計算平臺 Microsoft Azura China 致信客戶,敦促他們立即進行「自查整改」,清除「非法翻牆代理網站」以及VPN網路。
  • 網路間諜攻擊維吾爾、西藏倡導人士1月24日,網路安全公司Palo Alto Networks發表了對一個名為「Scarlet Mimic」的駭客組織為期七個月的調查所得到的結論。 這個組織使用不同的戰術對維吾爾人、藏人、他們的支持者進行網路間諜,包括通過手機等移動裝置。報告沒有明確指出有多少目標在中國境外,但是它舉的「偽裝」郵件例子主要由英語文件組成,包括《紐約時報》關於一名藏人僧侶死亡的報導以及世界維吾爾人大會的一個消息發佈。研究人員無法找到確鑿無疑的證據將駭客與中國政府聯繫在一起,但是報告說,這個組織的動機看來「與中國政府對待這些目標的立場一樣。」

未來看點

被拘禁律師的審判與判刑2015年7月間被捕律師的審判日期和刑期。12月對著名律師浦志強的懲罰(三年緩刑)相對來說較輕,這表明如果國際和國內壓力大的話,一些仍在等待判決的人可能會收到相對輕一些的刑期。的確,張海濤上個月獲得19年重刑,部分原因可能是因為他在國際上無人知道,又地處新疆這個敏感地區。

在權力交接後加強對臺灣的審查:反對黨民進黨在1月16日的選舉中獲勝後,新當選的立法委員已在2月1日上任,蔡英文將于5月取代馬英九擔任總統。 在權力交接期間以及之後,注意看是否會有更多對臺灣消息的審查以及中國官方媒體的強硬反應。

香港政府對書商案的反應:自從五名書商在中國被拘押以來,香港政府受到相當大的公眾壓力,要求從北京獲得相關資訊。據說行政長官梁振英和香港警方詢問了這五人的情況,但是港府是否會對有關指控和證據進行強有力調查,還有待觀察。有指控說,這五人當中至少一人被中國安全人員在香港綁架後被越境押到中國。

China Media Bulletin Issue No. 113 March 2016

$
0
0
pu zhiqiang

HEADLINES

 


FEATURE: The Gamble behind Xi Jinping’s More Restrictive Media Policy

by Sarah Cook

A drawing by political cartoonist Kuang Biao that depicts real-estate tycoon and Communist Party member Ren Zhiqiang as the victim of Mao-style political denunciation. After Kuang published the image of Ren—whose hugely popular Sina Weibo microblog account was deleted for criticizing Xi Jinping’s speech—the artist’s own Wehat account was then also shuttered. Credit: China Digital Times.

This article was also published in the Diplomat on March 8, 2016.

In a high-profile speech last month, Chinese president and Communist Party chief Xi Jinping elucidated his vision for forthcoming censorship and propaganda work. He declared that the media should fully identify with the party’s agenda—or as he put it, be “surnamed ‘Party’”—and that this standard should apply to the full spectrum of media content, from party-run outlets and commercial newspapers to advertising and entertainment.

At first glance, Xi’s forceful approach may give the impression of a bold leader asserting full control over his country’s information landscape. But behind the new media policy lies a risky gamble that could do more harm than good to public confidence in the party and its messaging.

At the root of the policy—a heavy-handed one even by Communist Party standards—is an incongruous combination of regime confidence and insecurity. On the one hand, Xi seems assured of the capacity of the censorship and propaganda apparatus to increase control, especially given past “successes” since he rose to power. For example, the Great Firewall has become more resistant to circumvention, critical political discussion on microblogs has been muzzled and a state-funded digital news outlet, the Paper, is gaining influence as commercial media and investigative reporting decline.

On the other hand, deep anxiety in the regime appears to be driving these greater controls. Officials are eager to suppress bad news about the economy, worried over public mistrust in state media, and engaged in internal battles linked to a fierce anticorruption campaign and leadership appointments due next year. All of these factors have raised concerns that even the highly restrictive status quo is no longer sufficient to preserve the party’s—and Xi’s own—political power.

But in addition to its negative effect on free expression, Xi’s policy may actually exacerbate the problems he is trying to resolve. A 2015 Freedom House report warned that the party’s repressive tactics could become self-defeating, and several incidents since Xi’s speech hint at how this might play out in the media sphere.

First, increased censorship on economic matters, especially when its footprints are clearly evident, can spook foreign and domestic investors, spurring more capital flight. At around the time of Xi’s speech, the central bank unexpectedly removed sensitive data used to assess capital flows from a regular financial report, and international media noted other efforts to curb publication of information that might portray the economy in a negative light. Less than two weeks later, the credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded China’s outlook from stable to negative, citing factors including a lack of “credible” reforms. Meanwhile, a day after the Chinese internet portal Sina deleted the popular microblog account of real-estate tycoon Ren Zhiqiang—under government orders—due to his criticism of the new media policy, shares of the company’s NASDAQ-listed stock dropped more than 5 percent.

Second, Ren is not alone in questioning the notion that the media should prioritize the party’s interests over the people’s. As David Kelly of the China Policy consultancy told the Financial Times, Ren represents a “trend in society which is totally fed up” with Xi’s divisive and repressive leadership style, and is not afraid to speak out. Punishing Ren, who had 37 million microblog followers, may intimidate some, but it will also stir resentment among the many who agree with him. On March 4, several party cadres published an open letter online that went so far as to call for Xi’s resignation, citing his handling of the media and encouragement of a “personality cult,” among other reasons. Just days later, the English website of Caixin, run by one of China’s most prominent journalists, took the rare step of publicizing the censorship of an article. The deleted piece had quoted a member of a government advisory body who called for greater freedom to offer honest opinions about party leaders.

Third, it is unclear that making state media more propagandistic and encouraging them to innovate on dissemination (but not on substance) will necessarily increase public trust in their messages. If one considers the past rise of popular microbloggers, or “Big Vs,” and the growth of commercial papers, it was candid expression and solid investigative reporting that built trust and drew in dedicated readers. Beijing has been attempting to expand the global reach of state media like China Central Television and Xinhua News Agency. By making party dominance over the outlets so explicit, Xi risks undermining any credibility they may have acquired among international audiences.

At home, Xi’s policy speech has already provoked netizen mockery of the party’s flagship publications. In late February, over 10,000 netizens posted derisive comments to a revived 2015 People’s Daily post in which the paper had asked readers what sweet potatoes are called in their home regions. Users answered with comments like “I won’t dare to improperly discuss its name; the Party has the say,” and “Use the Marxist-Vegetable Outlook, Mao Zedong Thought, and Deng Xiaoping Theory to democratically and objectively analyze the question.”

These dynamics illustrate the dangers of Xi’s approach. He is betting that those who are unaware of, indifferent to, or likely to be swayed by his heavy-handed media policy will decisively outnumber those who are dissatisfied or even motivated to work against it, and against the party’s political power in general.

We do not yet know if this gamble will succeed. But we do know that in the meantime, media consumers inside and outside China will be paying the price of more limited information about the critical economic, social, and environmental challenges facing the country.

 

Sarah Cook is a Senior Research Analyst for East Asia at Freedom House and director of the China Media Bulletin.


BROADCAST / PRINT MEDIA: Xi Jinping visits flagship state media, lays out vision for party control

On February 19, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader and state president Xi Jinping made a series of rare and high-profile visits to three flagship state-run news outlets: the party mouthpiece People’s Daily, the official Xinhua news agency, and the national broadcaster China Central Television. (Xi held a video conference with the CCTV America branch in Washington.) The president was greeted with applause, a banner pledging loyalty to the party, and a fawning poem by Xinhua editor Pu Liye that was widely circulated online, drawing netizen ridicule. After the visits, Xi gave a speech on media policy at a symposium attended by nearly 200 officials from Beijing and across the media sector.

While the full text of the speech has yet to be released, a number of key themes have emerged from segments published in state media. Most reflect dynamics and trends of media control that have already been evident under Xi, but their clear articulation indicates that the regime will place even greater emphasis on these principles in the coming weeks, months, and years:

  • Explicitly putting the party first: Although China’s media have long been under the firm hand of the CCP, even flagship news outlets have attempted to professionalize over the past two decades, balancing the twin priorities of adhering to the party line and engaging in at least some meaningful journalism. This has been the case both domestically and as part of an international push to gain credibility and audiences abroad. In widely quoted segments of his speech, however, Xi emphasizes that “the media should be surnamed party”—meaning all outlets should think of themselves as CCP messengers—and that “raising high the banner” of socialism with Chinese characteristics must take precedence.
  • Applying party control across all media forms: One might expect state news outlets and media run by party committees to closely follow the party line. However, Xi emphasized that in today’s decentralized information environment, this standard must be applied across all media—from commercial news outlets and social media to advertising and entertainment—and to content aimed at both domestic and international audiences. In one quote, Xi reportedly said, “Wherever the readers are, wherever the viewers are, that is where propaganda reports must extend their tentacles.”
  • Innovating to make party messaging more appealing: Xi particularly emphasized the need to adjust at least the superficial aspects of media reporting to meet public demand and make the party’s “positive propaganda” more enticing and influential. During the media office visits, he reportedly told reporters to write stories that “people like to read,” and in the subsequent speech said: “In doing a proper job of positive propaganda, [we must] increase the attractiveness and infectiveness [of state media products].”

David Bandurski of Hong Kong University’s China Media Project termed Xi’s approach Control 3.0, noting its more heavy-handed nature compared with the emphasis on public opinion “guidance” and “channeling” under his predecessors Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Chinese media jumped into action almost immediately after Xi’s speech. Within days, the Hunan Daily reportedly held a study session focused on the latest wisdom from the CCP leader. On February 25, the People’s Daily reported that the Central Propaganda Department had issued a notice ordering cadres throughout the media-control bureaucracy to study and implement the “spirit” of Xi’s speech.

Meanwhile, the first case of journalists being disciplined for not stepping in line was quickly reported, as editors of the Guangzhou-based Southern Metropolis News were punished for a front page that some interpreted as backhanded criticism of Xi’s policy. On February 20, under a headline referring to the speech, the paper’s Shenzhen edition ran a photo and wording for a second story that, if read vertically with the other headline, would say “Media following the surname of the party  have their souls returned to the sea.” The deputy chief editor, Wang Haijun, was given a “serious demerit,” and Liu Yuxia, one of the front-page editors, was fired.


NEW MEDIA: Outspoken social-media commentators purged after Xi speech

Only three days after President Xi Jinping visited key state news outlets and announced a media policy that would strengthen adherence to the party line, one of the most popular commentators on the Sina Weibo microblogging platform came under fire for criticizing Xi’s approach.

On February 19, the day of Xi’s media visits and speech, retired real-estate tycoon and CCP member Ren Zhiqiang wrote two posts in response. The first asked, “Since when did the people’s government change their name to the party’s government? Their money comes from the party members’ fees?” The second declared, “When all the media are working for something other than the people’s interest, people are left behind and forgotten.”

On February 22, a website run by the propaganda department of Beijing’s municipal party committee singled Ren out, stating that he had “lost his party spirit” and was “opposing the party.” Within days, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) ordered Sina and Tencent to close Ren’s social-media accounts because he had used them to “publish illegal information, which had a negative impact.” Ren’s Sina Weibo account, with over 37 million followers, was then deleted, making him one of the most prominent online commentators—often termed Big Vs—ever to face such punishment. (An October 2013 ranking by Sina Weibo listed him as the platform’s seventh most influential user.)

The decision to shutter Ren’s account may have been brewing in official circles for some time. In early February, he warned in controversial online and offline comments that the “winds of the Cultural Revolution are blowing once again” and criticized the party’s campaign to vilify “Western values.” His subsequent online punishment was accompanied by offline sanctions, including attacks in articles on government websites and by state media commentators, who accused him of “sinister intentions” and called him “ungrateful” and the “shame” of the party. On February 29, Beijing’s Xicheng district party committee announced that Ren had seriously violated party discipline and would be punished according to party rules. It remains to be seen whether the penalties will involve administrative demerits, expulsion from the party, or something more serious, like forwarding his case for criminal prosecution. The incident comes amid intensified efforts in recent months to unite party members behind “core leader” Xi Jinping and limit “improper discussion” of central policies within the party. On February 28, the party launched a new yearlong campaign to increase cadres’ confidence in “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Ren’s case, though prominent, does not appear to be isolated. On February 26, the CAC ordered the closure of the social-media accounts of actor Sun Haiying, scholar Rong Jian, and urban affairs expert Luo Yameng, asserting that “there are some internet celebrities who ignore their social responsibilities, abuse their influence, and constantly publish information that is against the law, which disturbs the social order, and damages the country’s well-being and reputation.” According to the CAC notice, the accounts were among 580 closed since February 8. The crackdown is reminiscent of events in August 2013, when Xi gave a speech urging propaganda cadres to regain the upper hand in guiding online discourse. Four days after the speech, American businessman and popular microblogger Charles Xue was detained on apparently trumped-up charges, setting off a series of measures targeting Big Vs that significantly reduced political commentary and news sharing on Sina Weibo.

Given Ren’s popularity and close official ties, his silencing provoked much discussion, disappointment, and shock among China’s netizens and entrepreneurs. Official bodies responded with efforts to restrict such conversations online. Some websites posting the CAC announcement reportedly deactivated their comment section, and Baidu banned users from establishing a Tieba discussion forum about Ren. After political cartoonist Kuang Biao published a drawing portraying Ren as the victim of Mao-style political denunciation, he reported that his own WeChat account was deleted.


BROADCAST / NEW MEDIA: Another televised ‘confession,’ penalties for online activists

Recent developments in cases involving Chinese and Tibetan activists highlight the geographic diversity of recent restrictions on free expression and the variety of punishments being handed down. They also indicate intensified efforts to prosecute low-profile activists for social-media posts relaying information or images that the CCP deems politically sensitive.

On February 25, Zhang Kai, a lawyer who had represented persecuted Christians and other victims of government repression, appeared on state-controlled Wenzhou TV in Zhejiang Province to “confess” to a range of alleged crimes. Zhang looked thin and haggard after six months in detention. His statements were part of a 10-minute segment on the evening news in which Zhang was portrayed as the mastermind of protests by local Christians against an official campaign of cross demolitions. Zhang expressed regret over his activism and admitted to “breaking the country’s laws, disrupting social order, endangering state security.” He added that there were “foreign forces” involved and warned other lawyers not to “collude” with or accept funding from such entities. Many observers felt he was being forced to read from a script provided by the authorities. Zhang is the latest rights activist to be forced to make a televised confession prior to being tried in court; the deputy head of the government-affiliated All China’s Lawyers Association called for an end to the practice.

Separately over the past several weeks, three-year prison sentences were handed down for Tibetan blogger Druklo in Qinghai Province and activist Jiang Lijun in Liaoning due to their online writings, and Tibetan monk Gomar Choepel was given a two-year sentence in Qinghai for sharing a photo of the Dalai Lama via social media. Another Tibetan man, serving a 13-year sentence imposed in 2014 for refusing to fly the Chinese flag in his village, reportedly died in prison. Meanwhile, authorities in Jilin Province issued a new indictment for citizen journalist Wang Jing in apparent retaliation for reports about the activities of petitioners that she had posted on social media and the Sichuan-based rights website Tianwang.


BROADCAST / NEW MEDIA: Unprecedented restrictions imposed on TV programs, online streaming

In recent weeks, Chinese government regulators have announced or implemented a series of new restrictions on broadcast and online television programming. The orders mark a departure from previous practice and will likely cost various players in the industry millions of dollars.

  • Hong Kong, Taiwan film award shows banned: On February 20, national state broadcaster China Central Television announced that it would not be airing the Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony scheduled for April 3, although it has carried the program annually since 1991. Internet portal Tencent similarly announced that it was suspending its online broadcast despite having already paid a $515,000 deposit for the streaming rights. News outlets and industry insiders reported that the order had come from the highest echelons of the censorship apparatus and was triggered by the nomination of Ten Years for best picture. The low-budget independent film, which was an unexpected box-office hit in Hong Kong, includes five short vignettes depicting a dystopian future for the territory under Beijing’s tightening political, security, and linguistic control. Derek Tung Sing Yee, chairman of the film association’s board of directors, told the Ming Pao Daily that the association stands to lose out on an online broadcast fee of HK$5 million (US$643,000). Taiwan’s Golden Horse film awards, to take place at the end of the year, will also not be aired in China as previously planned. Ironically, the move to censor the ceremonies seems to lend more credence to the fears of growing repression depicted in Ten Years.
  • Oscars live broadcast canceled: On February 28, the online broadcast of the 88th Academy Awards—the U.S. film awards ceremony also known as the Oscars—was moved from one Chinese host to another at the last minute. The commercial streaming site iQiyi.com, mostly owned by search-engine giant Baidu, had heavily promoted its plans to air a live bilingual broadcast of the ceremony. But on the morning of February 29 Beijing time, viewers found no evidence of the program on its site. Instead, the broadcast had been switched to 1905.com, a website of the state-run national broadcaster China Central Television’s movie channel. Moreover, the live format was replaced with a series of short segments posted with a delay. Douyu TV, another online firm that had planned to stream the program, did not do so either. iQiyi declined to comment on the reasons for the change, but observers speculated that it was due to the nomination of Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom, a documentary film about protests that ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Users reported that searches for the film’s title on Sina Weibo had been blocked.
  • Online programming to be subject to offline TV rules: On February 27, Li Jingsheng, head of the television drama management division of the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and Television, said that online television programming will be subject to the same content regulations as broadcast television shows, including preapproval requirements. Speaking at an annual meeting of the Chinese television industry, Li added that censors hired by video websites would receive training from regulators and be on call around the clock. The announcement came days after Addiction, a popular new online show depicting gay love, was taken offline. The online television industry has grown dramatically in recent years, as internet speeds have increased. According to official figures, video platforms produced 805 shows with a total of 12,000 episodes in 2015. Censorship directives dated December 31, 2015, and subsequently circulated online had outlined a wide range of newly banned types of content for television series. A lengthy translated list of the banned topics posted by Quartz includes reincarnation, witchcraft, homosexuality, romance between minors, and investigation methods that might inform criminals on ways to avoid detection. The rules elicited widespread indignation among Chinese internet users, with one netizen noting that the regulations could be applied to the four Chinese literary classics: “We can’t watch Journey to the West because there’s gods and demons fighting each other, we can’t watch Outlaws of the Marsh because it’s too bloody, we can’t watch Dream of the Red Chamber because there’s underage love, and we can’t watch Romance of the Three Kingdoms because there’s scenes of people committing crimes.”

BEYOND CHINA: Thailand refugees, Bangladesh exhibit, U.S. sanctions

  • Chinese refugees under threat in Thailand: The case of Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai, who was abducted from Thailand in October 2015 and detained in mainland China, appears to be part of a growing pattern. In early February, Chinese journalist Li Xin disappeared from Thailand near the Laos border, then called his wife from China later and—like other suspected abductees—claimed that he had returned voluntarily to assist in an investigation. Li, a former journalist at the Southern Metropolis Daily, fled China in October after Chinese security agents tried to pressure him into spying on human rights activists. He had initially made his way to India but was unable to gain asylum there. Other Chinese dissidents in Thailand report more subtle forms of intimidation. Liu Xuehong, a human rights activist and UN-designated refugee awaiting resettlement, told Reuters that suspicious men in cars have followed her around Bangkok, and that she received a threatening phone call from a Chinese official. Song Zhiyu, a Falun Gong refugee, said that under Thailand’s military regime, more than 29 fellow adherents of the spiritual practice had been detained on immigration charges and feared deportation back to China. Thailand was rated Not Free in the 2016 edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report.
  • Tibetan photographs censored at Bangladesh exhibit: The Dhaka Art Summit, one of South Asia’s most prestigious art shows, took place in the Bangladeshi capital from February 5 to 8. On display was a series of photographs titled “Last Words,” which featured letters written by Tibetans who had self-immolated to protest oppressive Chinese rule. The images were submitted by Indian filmmaker Rito Sarin and Tibetan exile Tenzing Sonam. But after China’s ambassador to Bangladesh visited the exhibit and “exploded” at the sight of the photos, he sent the summit’s organizers an e-mail demanding that the pieces be removed. In consultation with the owners, however, they decided instead to cover the pieces with white paper, limiting visitors’ ability to view the letters but providing an iconic image of the globalization of Chinese Communist Party censorship. In 2009, Bangladeshi authorities had shuttered another photography exhibit on Tibet at the request of Chinese diplomats.
  • High-profile dissidents denied visas for Taiwan conference: At least four individuals perceived by Beijing to be politically sensitive were refused visas to Taiwan or discouraged from applying for them ahead of a regional forum on religious freedom. Blind activist Chen Guangcheng, World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer, and Uighur activist Dolkun Isa told Radio Free Asia that they had been denied the opportunity to visit Taiwan and participate in the forum. Lopsang Sangay, prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, was also reportedly dissuaded from traveling to Taiwan for the conference. At least two of the four had visited on previous occasions. Media reports speculated that the difficulties were due to pressure from Beijing on the outgoing administration of President Ma Ying-jeou. In an editorial, the Taipei Times condemned the incident as a “step backwards for a nation that has taken pride in its endeavors to safeguard human rights.”
  • U.S. restricts sales to ZTE for violating Iran sanctions: On March 7, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that American companies will now need special permission to sell parts to ZTE, a smartphone maker and one of China’s largest technology firms, because it was found to have violated sanctions by selling American-made goods to Iran. The department said that ZTE had planned to “illicitly re-export controlled items to Iran in violation of U.S export laws.” It also cited two internal company documents to back up claims that the firm was deliberately violating sanctions, including those on countries like North Korea, Syria, and Cuba. The new export controls are likely to make business more difficult for ZTE, whose phones use certain components made by U.S. companies.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Full text and further implementation of Xi Jinping speech: Watch for the publication of leaked or approved versions of Xi’s February 19 speech. These will shed further light on the motivations behind and contours of his media policy. As implementation continues, watch for censorship of any backlash on Sina Weibo and Tencent’s WeChat, dismissals of journalists for noncompliance, and more flashy propaganda attempts like a recent animated video depicting “Xi Dada” vanquishing corrupt officials.

More pushback on media controls: As important as Xi’s speech will be for China’s media landscape in the near future, the pushback against it—from journalists, netizens, and even party cadres—has been just as notable. Watch for more instances of high-profile criticism and active resistance from within the party-state apparatus and the media industry.

Enforcement of new online publication rules: In February, government regulators issued new rules that could severely restrict foreign firms’ ability to publish (or even aggregate) a wide range of content online, including text, maps, games, animation, and videos. There has been much confusion and anxiety regarding what the regulations cover and how they will be applied. As the “Online Publishing Service Management Rules” come into effect on March 10, watch for how—and against whom—they are enforced.

中国媒体快报 第113号: 2016年3月 (Simplified Chinese)

$
0
0

通告:自由之家已将其《2015年互联网自由》报告中关于中国的部分译成中文并发表。

标题:


特写:  习近平进一步钳紧媒体是一场赌博

萨拉∙库克

这篇文章也发表于《外交家》, 《香港獨立媒體》 网站。

漫画家旷彪笔下的房地产商、共产党员任志强遭到毛式政治批斗。在任志强对习近平讲话提出批评后,他极受欢迎的新浪微博账户被删除。旷彪在发布这张漫画后,他的微信账户也被关闭。来源:《中国数字时报》.

在上个月大张旗鼓的一次讲话中,中国国家主席、中国共产党总书记习近平阐述了他对审查与宣传的愿景。他说媒体应该完全与党的目标保持一致,用他的话说,就是“党媒姓党”, 这个标准应该应用于所有媒体,不管是喉舌媒体还是商业化媒体,广告与娱乐也不例外。

乍一看,习近平的决断做法也许让人感到一个有胆略的领导人在对其国家的信息图景实施全面掌控。但是这一新的媒体政策其实是一个不无风险的赌博,极有可能损害公众对共产党以及它所传达的信息的信任。

即使按照共产党自己的标准,这一政策也是重手而且苛刻的。这个政策的根源是政权的信心以及不安全感的矛盾结合体。一方面,习近平似乎对审查与宣传机器加强控制的能力信心满满,尤其是他上台以来在这方面获得了很大“成功”。 比如说,中国的国家防火墙阻止翻墙的能力更强了,微博上批评性的政治讨论基本消声,国家出资的数字媒体“澎湃”的影响力有增无减,与此同时,商业化媒体和调查报道一路衰退。

但在另一方面,政权似乎是出于深刻的焦虑而日益钳紧控制。官员们急切地压制经济方面的坏消息,担心公众对国家媒体的不信任,与此同时,围绕尖锐的反腐败运动和下一年将要展开的领导人任命,政权内部出现内斗。所有这些因素都不免令人感到,即使高压控制下的现状都不足以维持共产党以及习近平本人的政治权力。

习近平的政策无疑对自由表达产生了负面效果,但他的政策反过来有可能会加重他试图解决的问题。自由之家2015年的一份报告警告说,共产党的压迫政策有可能适得其反,我们可以从习近平讲话以来的几个事件观察其在媒体领域的效果。

首先,对经济事务日益增加的审查,特别是当痕迹明显的时候,会令外国和本国投资者不安,并引发更多的资本外逃。在习近平讲话前后,中国人民银行从一份常规财政报告中令人意外地拿掉了用来评估资本流动的敏感数据国际媒体还注意到其它限制发表经济坏消息的做法。两个星期后,信用评级公司穆迪公司把对中国的预测从稳定降低到了负面,其引述的因素包括缺乏“可信”的改革。一天之后,中国的新浪网遵照政府的命令,删除了房地产大亨任志强广受欢迎的微博账户,皆因他批评了新的媒体政策。在纳斯达克上市的新浪股价随之下降了百分之五

其次,任志强并非唯一一个质疑媒体将党的利益置于人民利益之上的人。“中国政策”咨询公司的 David Kelly 告诉《金融时报》说,任志强代表了社会中一个对习近平制造矛盾、强力压制的领导风格“受够了的趋势”, 他敢于站出来说话。惩罚有着三千七百万粉丝的任志强也许会吓住一些人,但是会在很多与他想法一致的人当中激起怨恨。三月四日,一些号称共产党员的人发表了一封公开信,要求习近平辞职,其中指出他对待媒体的方式以及鼓励“个人崇拜”等。不几天后,由中国最有影响的记者之一掌管的《财新》杂志的英文网站不同寻常地公开了它的一篇文章受到审查的经过。这篇被删文章引述的一名政协成员呼吁扩大言论自由度,允许对党的领导人提出中肯意见。

第三,目前还不清楚的是,使国家媒体宣传意味更浓、鼓励他们在传播上而不是内容上创新是否会增加公众对他们的话语的信任。过去,大V的崛起以及商业化媒体的增长是因为他们坦率的表达和扎实的调查报道建立起了信任,吸引了忠实的读者。北京一直在试图扩大诸如中央电视台和新华社的国际运作。将党对媒体的控制表露得这么露骨,习近平其实有可能在损害他们在国际听众中或已获得的任何可信度。

在中国国内,习近平的政策讲话遭到了网友对党媒的嘲笑。二月底,有人将《人民日报》2015年的一条旧微博重新转发出来,结果一万多名网友发表了嘲笑的回帖。这条微博问读者红薯在他们的当地方言中叫什么, 网友回答说,“不敢妄议,党说了算,” “按照马克思主义蔬菜观和毛泽东思想邓小平理论客观民主分析。”

这些现象展示了习近平做法的危险。他的赌注是,那些不了解、不关心、或者会被他的强势媒体政策说服的人数会决定性地超过那些不满、甚至想要与之对立、或与党的政治权力对立的人数。

我们还不知道这场赌博会不会取胜。但是与此同时,我们的确知道,当重要的经济、社会和环境信息受到限制时,付出代价的将是中国境内和境外的媒体消费者。

萨拉库克是自由之家东亚资深研究分析员,《中国媒体快负责人。


广播 / 纸媒: 习近平视察旗舰国家媒体,阐述党管媒体的愿景

2月19日,中国共产党领导人和国家主席习近平对三家旗舰国家媒体进行了罕见而高调的视察: 党的喉舌《人民日报》、官方新华通讯社、以及中央电视台。(习近平还与位于美国首都华盛顿的中央电视台北美台进行了录像通话。)习近平所到之处受到掌声欢迎,现场标语对党宣示忠诚,新华编辑蒲立业写的一首肉麻的诗在网上广泛流传,遭到网友嘲笑。视察后,习近平在一个由200名媒体官员出席的“新闻舆论工作座谈会”上就媒体政策做了讲话。

虽然习近平讲话的全文还有待公布,但是几个关键主题已经出现在官媒发表的片断中。它们大多数反映了习近平上台以来已在实施的媒体控制和趋势,但是这样清楚地说出来表明当局在未来更加强调这些原则:

  • ---明确地把党放在第一位:尽管中国的媒体一直在党的严格控制下,但是过去二十年里即使旗舰媒体也曾进行专业化尝试,在保持党的路线与实践一定程度上的专业新闻之间取得一个平衡。国内的媒体如此,向境外发展的媒体也是如此,以便在国际上获得信任和观众。然而,在受到广泛引述的讲话片断中,习近平强调说媒体“必须姓党”。也就是说,所有媒体都必须把自己当作共产党的信使,必须把高举中国特色的社会主义旗帜放在首位。
  • ---对所有形式的媒体实行党的控制:由各级党委直接管理的官方媒体当然会紧跟党的路线。但是习近平强调说,在今天这种非中心化的信息环境下,这个标准必须应用于所有媒体,从商业化新闻媒体和社交媒体,到广告与娱乐,不管内容是针对中国国内观众还是针对国际观众。一个报道引述习近平的话说,“读者在哪里,宣传报道的触角就要伸向哪里。”
  • ---宣传创新,使党的信息更吸引人:习近平特别强调要调整媒体报告的形式,以满足大众需要,使党的“正面报道”更吸引人,更有影响力。报道说,他在对媒体的视察中告诉记者说,要写群众喜欢读的故事,在之后的讲话中他又说,要进行正面宣传,就必须增加[媒体产品的]吸引力和感染力。

香港大学中国传媒研究计划的班志远将习近平的做法称为“管控3.0版”,指出在“引领导向”公共舆论方面,习近平的做法比他的前任江泽民以及胡锦涛更加手重。不几天后,有报道说《湖南日报》开会学习习近平的智慧。2月25日,《人民日报》报道说,中共中央宣传部发布通知,要求媒体官员“深入学习宣传贯彻习近平总书记在党的新闻舆论工作座谈会上的重要讲话精神。”

与此同时,很快就有记者因为“出错”而受到惩罚。广州《南方都市报》的记者和编辑因为首页设计被诠释为影射习近平的政策而遭到惩罚。2月20日,这家报纸深圳版的头条关乎习近平的讲话,与下面一条照片中的字连起来竖读便是“媒体姓党,魂归大海。” 这家报纸的副总编辑王海军被给予行政记大过处分,当班编辑刘玉霞则被开除。


新媒体:  习近平讲话后,社交媒体敢言的评论者遭到集体清洗

习近平视察三家喉舌媒体、宣布党媒姓党后仅仅三天,新浪微博上最受欢迎的评论者之一就因为批评习近平的做法而遭到攻击。

2月19日,习近平视察喉舌媒体并发表讲话当天,退休的房地产大亨、中共党员任志强写了两条微博回应。第一条微博写道,“人民政府啥时候改当政府了?花的是党费吗?”第二条微博写道,“当所有的媒体都有了姓,并且不代表人民的利益时,人民就被抛弃到被遗忘的角落了!”

2月22日,北京市委宣传部的一个网站开始批评任志强,说他“失去了党性”,“反党”。几天内,网信办下令新浪和腾讯关闭任志强的微博账户,因为他使用这些账户发布“违法信息,影响恶劣”。于是任志强有着三千七百万粉丝的账户被关闭,成为遭受这种惩罚的最有影响的大V之一 (新浪2013年10月公布的一个排行榜将他排在新浪微博影响最大用户的第七名)。

在官方圈子中,关闭任志强账户的决定可能已经酝酿了一段时间。二月初,他在网上以及网下的言论中警告说,“文革之风又起来了”,并且批评中共污名“西方价值观”的做法。除账户被关闭,他还遭到多个政府网站文章的攻击以及官媒评论员的批判。他们指责他有“阴险意图”,并说他“忘恩负义”,是党的“耻辱”。 2月29日,北京西城区党委宣布要根据党规对严重违反党纪的任志强进行处罚。任志强是否会被行政记过、或者开除出党、或者受到刑事指控,还有待观察。过去几个月来共产党一直要求党员与“领导核心”习近平保持一致,避免在党内“妄议中央”政策。2月28日,中共中央宣布开始持续一年的党员教育活动,培育干部对“中国特色的社会主义”的信心。

任志强的案例并不是孤立的。2月26日,网信办宣布关闭演员孙海英、学者荣剑、城市专家罗亚蒙等多名大V的账户,说这些“网络名人无视社会责任,滥用自身影响力,在网上多次发布反对宪法所确定的基本原则、损害国家荣誉和利益以及造谣传谣、扰乱社会秩序等违法违规信息的行为”。根据网信办的通知,2月8日以来有580个账户被关闭,这些大V账户也囊括其中。这次打击令人想起2013年8月的事。当时习近平讲话敦促宣传干部要在网络话语中重新夺取优势,四天后,美国国籍商人、微博红人薛蛮子便因嫖娼指控而遭到拘留,由此开始针对大V的一系列打击措施,大大减少了新浪微博上的政治性评论和新闻分享。

考虑到任志强的受欢迎程度以及他与一些高官的关系,对他的消声引发了很多讨论,中国网民和企业家对此表示失望和震惊。官方机构对此的反应是对这样的网上讨论进行限制。一些发布了网信办通知的网站据说关闭了评论,百度则禁止用户建立一个讨论任志强的贴吧。漫画家旷彪在贴了一幅任志强受文革式批斗的漫画后,他的微信账户遭到删除


广播 / 新媒体:   又一人‘电视认罪’, 对网络活动人士的惩罚

近期几个涉及中国活跃人士和藏人活跃人士的案例显示了在限制言论表达上的地区差异以及惩罚上的差异,也显示中共正在强化打压那些在网上发表中共认为政治敏感信息和图片的不知名活跃人士。

2月25日,在被拘留六个月后,代理受逼迫的基督徒以及其它政府迫害受害人的张凯律师,出现在浙江温州当地电视上,“承认”了对他的一系列指控。张凯看上去清瘦憔悴。他的电视认罪出现在一段十分钟的晚间新闻节目上。他被指责策划和鼓动当地基督徒反对拆十字架运动。 张凯还对他的活动表示悔过,承认他“违反了国家法律,扰乱了社会秩序,危害了国家安全”。他还承认了所谓的“外国势力”的介入,并告诫其他律师不要与这样的境外势力“勾结”或接受它们的资助。许多观察者感到张凯在被迫念一份当局为他准备好的脚本。在张凯之前,已经有一系列维权活跃人士被迫未审先判,在电视上认罪。官方的全国律师协会副会长日前呼吁停止这种做法。

过去几周来,知名青海省藏人作家雪合江、辽宁活跃人士姜力钧因网络写作分别被判处三年徒刑,青海藏人僧侣群培因在微信中收藏并发送西藏精神领袖达赖喇嘛的法像而被判处两年徒刑。一名因拒绝在他的村里升中国国旗而在2014年被判刑13年的藏人死于狱中。与此同时,吉林省当局向公民记者王晶提出了新的起诉书,显然是对她在社交媒体以及在四川维权网站天网上报道网民活动进行报复。


广播 / 新媒体: 对电视节目、网络剧进行没有先例的限制

几个星期来,中国政府管制部门宣布或实施了一系列新规定,对电视节目和网络剧进行新的限制。这与以前的做法不同,很可能引起多方从业者的大笔经济损失。

  • 香港、台湾电影颁奖节目被禁2月20日中央电视台宣布它不会在4月3日播放香港电影金像奖颁奖仪式,尽管自1991年以来中国电视台每年都直播金像奖典礼。互联网站腾讯也宣布它将停播金像奖,尽管它已经为网络直播支付了$515,000的定金。新闻媒体和行业知情者说,这个命令来自宣传部门最高层,原因是电影《十年》被提名为最佳影片。这部低成本独立电影在香港获得了出人意料的票房成功。它由五个短片组成,描绘香港在北京越来越钳紧的政治、安全、语言控制下的反乌托邦未来。香港电影金像奖协会董事局主席尔冬升告诉《明报》说,禁播将导致协会失去大约五百万港币(约$643,000美元)的网播收费损失。年底将举行的台湾金马奖颁奖仪式也不会如前所计划的那样在中国大陆播出。讽刺的是,禁播颁奖仪式正好为电影《十年》中所描述的日益紧逼的压制提供了佐证。
  • 美国奥斯卡颁奖典礼直播被取消:2月28日,对第88届美国奥斯卡颁奖典礼的网络直播在最后一刻从一家中国网站转给了另一家。主要由百度拥有的商业网播网站爱奇艺已经就双语直播奥斯卡奖颁奖典礼做了大量宣传。但是2月29日北京时间早上,观众在爱奇艺网站上没有找到网播的迹象。原来网播从爱奇艺转到了中央电视台电影频道的1905.com 网站。 同时,直播也被一系列片断取代,并且时间滞后。另一个计划网播奥斯卡典礼的网站douyuTV也没有播放。爱奇艺没有解释改播的原因,但是观察者猜测说,这是因为一部2014年记录乌克兰总统维克多∙亚努科维奇的记录片《凛冬烈火 – 乌克兰为自由而战》得到奥斯卡提名的原因。网友报告说,在新浪微博无法搜索这部影片。
  • 网络节目要服从网下电视节目的规定:2月27日,中国国家广播电影电视总局电视剧司李京盛司长说,网络电视剧也要服从同样的电视内容规定,包括获得预先批准。李京盛在2015全国电视剧年会上说,网站自审的审核员需要接受总局培训考核,必须要启用24小时不间断的监看模式。此前一天,一部描述同性恋的流行网剧《上瘾》被下线。随着网速的提高,网络电视剧近年在中国发展很快。官方数据显示,2015年,录像平台制作了805个电视剧,共12,000集。日期为2015年12月31日的审查指令罗列了范围广泛的禁播内容。Quartz网站翻译并发布了这个很长的禁播名单,包括轮回转世、巫术作法、同性恋、未成年人早恋、可诱导罪犯掌握反侦查方法等内容。这些规定在中国网民中引发了广泛不满,一位网民指出,这些规定也可以适用于中国四大文学名著:我们不能看《西游记》,因为它宣传妖魔鬼怪,不能看《水浒传》因为它宣传杀人放火,不能看《红楼梦》因为它宣传未成年人早恋,不能看《三国演义》因为它包含犯罪的场面。

中国之外:  泰国难民,孟加拉国展览,美国制裁

  • 中国难民在泰国受到威胁:香港书商桂民海2015年10月在泰国被绑架、现被关押在中国大陆。这起事件显示了一个日益严重的趋势。二月初,记者李新在泰国和老挝边界失踪,后来他从中国境内给妻子打了电话,并且如其他疑被绑架的人一样,声称他自愿返回中国协助调查。李新是《南方都市报》前记者,去年十月逃离中国。他说中国国安一直试图强迫他打探人权活跃分子的信息。他最初去了印度,但无法在那里获得庇护。在泰国的其他中国异议人士则透露了形式更加微妙的威胁。已在联合国难民署登记、目前在等待安置的人权活跃人士刘雪红告诉路透社说,在曼谷有可疑的男人在车中跟踪她,她从一名中国官员那里收到电话威胁。法轮功难民宋志宇说,泰国军政权以移民指控拘留了29名法轮功成员,他们担心会被遣返中国。在自由之家2016年《世界自由报告》中,泰国被评为不自由国家。
  • 西藏影在孟加拉展上被撤:南亚最有声望的艺术展之一“达卡艺术峰会”2月5-8号在孟加拉首都举行。参展的有一个名为“最后的话”摄影系列,是为抗议中国统治而自焚的藏人留下的遗书。这些摄影作品由印度电影人Rito Sarin以及流亡藏人Tenzing Sonam提交。但是中国驻孟加拉大使参观了展览,看到这组图片后“大发雷霆”。之后他给展览组织者发电子邮件,要求撤下这些作品。组织者在与图片拥有人商量后决定,与其撤下图片,不如用白纸把这些图片盖起来,不让参观者看到这些遗书,由此提供一个中国共产党在全球进行审查的经典图像。2009年,孟加拉当局曾经屈服于中国外交人员的要求,关闭另一个图博特摄影展。
  • 著名异见人士台湾签证被拒:至少四名北京眼里的政治敏感人物被拒绝、或者被阻拦申请台湾签证,以致他们无法前往台湾参加一个地区性宗教自由会议。盲人活动人士陈光诚、世界维吾尔大会主席热比娅以及维族活动家多尔坤告诉自由亚洲电台说,他们被拒绝了这次访问台湾、参加会议的机会。藏人流亡政府总理洛桑森格据说也被劝阻不要参加在台湾的会议。这四人中至少两人以前因别的活动而访问过台湾。媒体报道猜测,这四人遇到的困难是因为北京对即将卸任的台湾总统马英九施压。《台北时报》在一篇社论中谴责这一事件,说“这对一个以努力保障人权为荣的国家来说是倒退的一步”。
  • -因其违反对伊朗制裁,美国限制向中兴公司的销售:美国商务部3月7日宣布,美国公司现在需要许可才可以向中兴公司出售部件,原因是后者违反了不许向伊朗出售美国造产品的制裁规定。中兴公司是一个智能手机制造商,是中国最大的科技公司之一。商务部说,中兴公司打算“违反美国出口法律,非法再出口受控物品”。商务部还引用了两个内部文件来支持它的指称,即中兴有意违反针对北韩、叙利亚和古巴等国的制裁规定。新的出口管控很可能会给中兴增加业务困难,它的手机使用某些美国公司生产的部件。

未来看点

习近平讲话全文以及进一步贯彻:注意习近平2月19日讲话被泄露出来或发型经审定后的版本。这将会进一步显示他的媒体政策的动机以及形状。随着执行的继续,注意新浪微博或腾讯微信上对任何反对声音的审查,注意是否有记者因不服从而被开除,注意是否会有更多的花哨宣传,诸如最近这个习大大打腐败官员的录像

更多对媒体管控的抵制:正如习近平的讲话近期内将对中国媒体景观发生重要影响一样,来自记者、网民、甚至官员的抵制也同样值得瞩目。注意是否会有更多高调批评出现,是否会有来自党国机器内部以及媒体业的积极抵制。

新网络出版规定的执行:政府管制机构二月份发布新规定,可能会严重限制外国公司在网上出版(或者甚至汇聚)多方面内容的能力,包括文字、地图、游戏、动画、和录像。这些规定的适用范围及其执行引起了广泛的不解和焦虑。 《网络出版服务管理规定》3月10日起生效,注意这些规定如何执行,针对谁执行。

Viewing all 165 articles
Browse latest View live